Why I hate food bloggers by Mario Batali #01

why I hate food bloggers, by Mario Batali #01

Many of the anonymous authors who vent on blogs rant their snarky vituperatives from behind the smoky curtain of the web. This allows them a peculiar and nasty vocabulary that seems to be taken as truth by virtue of the fact that it has been printed somewhere. Unfortunately, this also allows untruths, lies and malicious and personally driven dreck to be quoted as fact. Even a savvy blog like the one you are reading now has strangely superseded truly responsible journalism.

-ramon

Let him open a restaurant in London and he can enjoy how responsible the traditional food journalists are.

Blah, blah, blah. Mario- yes, you're famous with legions of fans who will flock to any new restaurant you open, but bloggers aren't going away anytime soon because you declare your hatred for them. And to infer that mainstream media is necessarily the place where all responsible journalism happens is a hoot.

In full disclosure: I do not have a blog.

Again with the "anonymous". I don't get it.

aschie30 wrote:In full disclosure: I do not have a blog.

But you do post here. I'm guessing that the difference between a blog and a discussion board in Batali's mind is about as distinct as the difference between tagliatelle and fettuccine in my mind.

eatchicago wrote:

aschie30 wrote:In full disclosure: I do not have a blog.

But you do post here. I'm guessing that the difference between a blog and a discussion board in Batali's mind is about as distinct as the difference between tagliatelle and fettuccine in my mind.

I agree, but he does limit his discussion to "blogs."

Reading the whole thread, though, it appears like an exercise in mis-directed anger. Mario's ticked at a leasing company, ticked that the NY Post (mainstream media, by the way, with fact checkers, I presume), misreported something that was ultimately picked up by a blog. Shouldn't Mario's comments be directed at the NY Post?

Overall, Mario's entire rant smacked of sour grapes. Mario is an incredibly successfuly restaurant magnate, why should he get worked up over some relatively minute (minute to the general public, that is) dispute with a landlord reported by the NY Post, which is two steps above a tabloid, anyway, and everyone knows that?

It's also sort of like complaining about cell phones at this point, or traffic. They're not going away, deal with them.

When you consider that half of the traffic on Chowhound's New York boards is devoted to Babbo and Lupo (enough that at some point someone coined the term "babbolupocentrism" to describe the boards' obsession with his joints), what the hell has he got to complain about, really?

Mike G wrote:what the hell has he got to complain about, really?

Don't you see, Michael Gebert? They're ANONYMOUS!!!

Best,
Michael Morowitz

OK, another point about the whole anonymous thing - didn't Ruth Reichl do her thing expressly because known reviewers were getting preferential treatment? "Car crash" posts aside, I trust a review that reflects an ordinary joe being served on an ordinary day over one that reflects "on your toes" service.

Mhays wrote:OK, another point about the whole anonymous thing - didn't Ruth Reichl do her thing expressly because known reviewers were getting preferential treatment? "Car crash" posts aside, I trust a review that reflects an ordinary joe being served on an ordinary day over one that reflects "on your toes" service.

Well, his point isn't about eating anonymously but rather writing anonymously. As far as he is concerned, ordinary joe isn't accountable because he doesn't work for a big company.

Let's face it, nobody thought Ruth Reichl was fair at the beginning, either. Still, although there are indeed people out there who are nastier when their name isn't involved (thoug I'd bet they're jerks in person,) I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people who are more truthful, especially when the truth is unpleasant and the restaurant is "famous." At several of the retail shops where I've worked, we had anonymous comment cards - almost all of which were returned with a negative story. Was our service truly awful? No. Were the comments true? Yes.

I can see where a food blog or even a named bad review can have a devastating effect on a restaurant - and this must be frightening for even a celebrity chef, but - a secret underground of anonymous bloggers out to destroy capitalism by writing unjust reviews? Really, Mario?

"Help us, Spider-Man - we must save the WWW from the unnamed menace...but, wait...who exactly is under that red mask? ...... AAAAAH!"

call batali a waaaahmbulance...

now 'joe tadalada' can't call out an opinion?

mario is a fine chef, but he need'nt view the public as so many gaping maws.


bourdain cum ruhlman blogs, as well...

apparently, mb's fat, fleshy, pink posterior handles some bitemarks, better than others.

I'd like to see big bad Batali write the same rant against Frank Bruni...I'm willing to bet he has some bad blood over Del Posto not getting four stars, which was the entire goal from the beginning. How come he isn't taking them to task.

He wouldn't of course, because no matter how powerful the blog, the NYT can still definitively break him. The only reason Batali is even going after the bloggers is precisely because of their perceived powerless anonymity.

That being said, since I've shaken the tree regarding anonymity with my Newcity column etc, but haven't had much time lately to respond on LTH...I will say that the problem as I see it isn't with the anonymity, as much as it is regarding the psychology of anonymity....when you are not using youyr own name, I believe there's an inherent human tendency to be more free in your language and actions...people will protest and talk about how they've had the same moniker for years, and how everyone knows them etc...but that's just not true...sure many of their peers know, but I bet of the 3,000 registered users on LTH only about 10 of them actually know who MJN (me) was before I put my name in a tagline...GWIV, CATHY2, etc don't neccesarily count in this regard because they've been the visible founders of the forum, and everyone really does know who they are.

Regarding big corporations tempering critics, it's true...I bet the before and after drafts from some critics are very enlightening regarding restaurant reviews...the tendency to avoid being sued is a big damn stick...that being said, you don't necessarily need a big corporation, just a reasonable editor, or a good conscience, frankly most of the folks on this forum do take their role seriously in policing others when they seem to be going off the handle, and in some ways, my concerns about forums and their anonymity is preaching to the choir with many of the users here, but in all fairness, there are some folks who I believe still have an agenda of some kind and it's easier for them to exercise that agenda since they are untethered in all kinds of ways...

Michael,

Thank you for weighing back in on this subject.

Respectfully, I thought your original opinion about "anonymity" was off base and I think your attempt to qualify it takes it even further off base.

MJN wrote:I will say that the problem as I see it isn't with the anonymity, as much as it is regarding the psychology of anonymity....when you are not using youyr own name, I believe there's an inherent human tendency to be more free in your language and actions

This, I believe, is the core of my difference with your opinion. You call the freedom in language and action a problem. I believe it is a benefit.

People have these same debates about constitutional freedoms all the time. As you said, most of us here use our culinary-review freedom positively, honestly and for good, but there are a few who can misuse it. The same goes for the freedom of the press, religion, privacy, and speech in the off-line world. Many people use it for good, some others use it for evil. The good thing is that most of us can tell the difference.

Should I have to change my blog to "eatchicago, by Michael Morowitz" because someone once posted a nasty review on another blog? I say no, simply because anyone who reads what I write knows that I do it honestly, with no hidden agenda. I'm not giving up the freedom to do it the way I want to just because someone else can't manage to do the same.

Best,
Michael

Well, Michael M., I think there's no question that there is an Internet a-hole phenomenon rooted in part in anonymity, and that bullying and endless grudges have to be stopped pretty much at the beginning or any online board will end up being taken over by the jerks and the regular folks chased away. At least, pretty much all of Usenet has demonstrated this point at some point.

But Michael N., where I disagree is in the idea that everyone has to know my name or I might as well be anonymous. I think pretty much the exact opposite: the lack of anonymity curbs a-holism even if only 5 or 10 people know my name-- that's still enough of a brake that I can't freely be a jerk without knowing that someone can trace it back to a face, a name, an address and employer and a wife who'll think I'm being an idiot. That's also why we work pretty hard to bring people into a social circle, so they do get past anonymity and behave a little better, and help us transmit those values of civil discourse to others here.

Ultimately, I think it is culture within a group, far more than online vs. offline, anonymous vs. signed, etc. that determines whether it will be fair or vicious. English restaurant reviewers work in a culture that prizes unbelievable nastiness; their work is signed, but they exist in a milieu that rewards you by name for being abusive, and so they are. If I were a restaurateur I'd take anonymous, occasionally ripe for misuse LTHForum over that scene any day.

Mike G wrote:But Michael N., where I disagree is in the idea that everyone has to know my name or I might as well be anonymous. I think pretty much the exact opposite: the lack of anonymity curbs a-holism even if only 5 or 10 people know my name-- that's still enough of a brake that I can't freely be a jerk without knowing that someone can trace it back to a face, a name, an address and employer and a wife who'll think I'm being an idiot. That's also why we work pretty hard to bring people into a social circle, so they do get past anonymity and behave a little better, and help us transmit those values of civil discourse to others here.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mike G on this.

As a psychologist, I think it would be interesting to see a social psychology study on internet forums. (I am not familiar with any, though they may exist). I imagine that such a study would observe the same sort of phenomena that appear in everyday life, where, for example, the high-status group members model behavior that is then enacted by other group members, where norms are established, and where consensus on key issues is developed, and so on, in the fashion of all groups of human beings. What I am getting at is essentially that it is quite naive to assume that there are only individual agendas nay issues behind internet postings. I guess I am saying the same thing as MikeG, below:

Mike G wrote: Ultimately, I think it is culture within a group, far more than online vs. offline, anonymous vs. signed, etc. that determines whether it will be fair or vicious. English restaurant reviewers work in a culture that prizes unbelievable nastiness; their work is signed, but they exist in a milieu that rewards you by name for being abusive, and so they are. If I were a restaurateur I'd take anonymous, occasionally ripe for misuse LTHForum over that scene any day.

Moreover, if you read LTH Forum, it is immediately evident that, beyond the social connections that develop among members, much effort is devoted to reflecting on the phemomenon of the board itself. This points to a set of common values that is ignored by those who react strongly to a single poster's negative comments.

Out of these values emerge certain themes that have constuctive effects on the content of the board. For instance, one theme on LTH is the appreciation of small restaurants that tend to serve a single ethnic or neighborhood community and don't get much coverage in the mainstream press. Another value, intrepid food exploration (most recently epitomized by Hammond and Cathy2 with their cicada adventures), has lots of us examining our assumptions about what we eat. I could go on about this, but all you have to do is look at the board to identify the themes. If they are "agendas" they are positive ones. I'm guessing that many LTH-er's are just as caught up as I am with marveling at what has been created here. But perhaps we should address those critics who fail to acknowledge the positive agendas behind internet boards, the ones who focus instead on the infrequent random nasty comments.

I think the 5 or 10 people who might know a person's internet handle are probably also your closest aquaintances, and therefore you still feel at home...it's as if you're having a dinner among really close friends or family, and I think for some, there is a tendency to say things even in these "comfortable" environments that we might not say had we really examined the issue at hand...that being said, I know that Mike G or Eatchicago you probably don't post anything without deliberation, so I understand how you can rightfully protest my assertions, because that's how you personally operate (frankly the reality of things is that the serious posters on this board are more professional than a lot of "real" food journalists around town) ...but I don't think the seriousness with which you approach posting here is neccesarily followed by many and certainly not everyone on this and many other boards, blogs, and websites...

Also, I can see that this might seem like me coming from a position of authority as a journalist and trying to protect my throne (more like a rickety stool)..the reality is that a year and half ago, I was an ecommerce/web design manager....being a journalist is a new thing, and I still identify as a passionate gourmand and everyday citizen as much as I do a journalist... I guess I want to make it clear I have no interest in protecting the establishment here...in fact I'll be the first person to argue that the local establishment is responsible for the trove of lackluster blow by blow critical reviews lacking any time of cultural context and blah features locally...the establishment is afraid to take chances and spends too much time catering to a percieved doltish audience that doesn't exist.

Though it may seem like it, I actually have no interest in limiting freedom to say what you want...I agree, it's precisely why I have Hungry magazine in addition to my regular journalistic endeavors... I honestly think LTHforum should allow degenerative flame wars, if that's what people really want to do...ultimately the serious folk will just ignore those posts and follow what they care about...I guess in the end I'm not even arguing for internet forums to banish anonymity...writers for national publications have proven that you can make baseless or absurd assertions with your good name on the line....I'm really arguing that people should take their anonymity and ease of access to a public voice seriously and approach their posts with an honest heart and an open mind.....you guys do this and serve as a great example for others...I just hope others follow that example...

eatchicago wrote:This, I believe, is the core of my difference with your opinion. You call the freedom in language and action a problem. I believe it is a benefit.

Right on, Michael! (insert power to the people emoticon here)

Let's put it this way - anonymous reviews (even considering places like yelp - whose community is less, shall we say, careful) - have they improved food culture for the consumer, or made it worse? The answer seems pretty clear to me.

An ecclesiastical history of the food web, the media’s response to online restaurant criticism, and why Mario Batali is an idiot.

Ramon wrote:An ecclesiastical history of the food web, the media’s response to online restaurant criticism, and why Mario Batali is an idiot.

As a closet fan of church history (I'm going through a fine history of the Inquisition right now -- really, I love this stuff), I found the analogies between church-held sprititual knowledge and the Protestant Reformation's fight to release this knowledge to be an intriguing analogy for the way bloggers are assailing the fortress of food criticism, once the exclusive preserve of "professionals" who held their positions as though by divine authority.

I was struck by the author's comment that:

Taste is, after all, subjective - why take the advice of a professional over an amateur when both are equally passionate? Outside of disciplined fact checking and a competitive hiring process, it’s difficult to distinguish what mainstream critics have that food bloggers don’t.

In answer to the question, I'd trust a professional food critic for the same reason as I'd trust a doctor, a lawyer, or my car mechanic -- they're professionals who've made it a big part of their lives to understand their subject matter. This is not to say that others lack insight, but that professionals may bring a level of understanding and perception to the table that others may not have developed. Of course, many bloggers and folks who post on LTH are, to my mind, food professionals even though they're not employed in the food industry, and they're unlikely to be read in the newspapers (I'm thinking of people like Cathy2, among many, many others here). Taste is subjective, but as we've discussed before, not everyone's opinions on food are of equal value, though all should be given equal consideration.

I would also argue that a "competitive hiring process" could tend to locate special talent amidst a pile of talented people. Such a Darwinian selection process would not, however, guarantee quality thinking about food, and there are people who post on LTH who I would look to for good guidance over many "mainstream" food writers.

Still, I weep when reading Gold; he's just so good.

Taste is, after all, subjective - why take the advice of a professional over an amateur when both are equally passionate? Outside of disciplined fact checking and a competitive hiring process, it’s difficult to distinguish what mainstream critics have that food bloggers don’t.

In answer to the question, I'd trust a professional food critic for the same reason as I'd trust a doctor, a lawyer, or my car mechanic

I don't think this analogy holds, since there is a long learning process and significant "barriers to entry" to the professions and many trades that need to be overcome. Moreover, the consequences of failure there can be costly, and, certainly, incompetence is a selective disadvantage.

But I agree that the validity of this rhetorical question is dubious. I think it would be more accurate to compare a professional food critic to other critical occupations, where expertise in art/music/literature and gobs of viewing/listening/reading experience are huge advantages. The border between professional and amateur is much more porous here, but the critical and expressive ability of a Schama/Craft/Bloom far exceeds that of your average blogger. Successful criticism, whether it's of food or literature, is as much of an art as a profession (both of which by the way require passion, but not to the exclusion of all other qualities), and it is reasonable to take more seriously the opinions of those who are more skilled at it than others.

Reading this thread has made me really glad that people don't use their real names. If they did, it would be like the wedding scene in Goodfellas where all the guys were named Peter or Paul and married to girls named Marie. I'd need a sticky at the top of the page to tell the Mikes and Michaels apart!

As far as he is concerned, ordinary joe isn't accountable because he doesn't work for a big company.

I disagree with this sentiment -- I think, especially within the realm of this community; you are held accountable to a certain degree if you post a negative review or a review containing a lot of hyperbole. The good thing about this forum is that you get a large number of opinions, both good and bad, and more often than not, I find that posters often question people's negative reviews more than they would a positive one. (*ahem* - case in point.) We're not out here just to bash restaurant owners and their business. Often if a review is negative, there is some reason behind it. When that reason seems effusive or weak, the poster is often brought to the table for it.

I also have to agree with muddpuddle; it's much easier to keep track of everyone by their screen names as opposed to trying to learn real names. I've met quite a few LTH'ers now and even now I tend to remember people's screen names better than I would their 'real' names. I identify with them in that sense because I remember what they've said in various posts and attach that with my overall view of who they are.

This isn't AOL or some newbie web forum, either; I feel that people take their responsibility very seriously here. We all put in our opinions and experiences and through the collective experiences, as a reader of the forum, I can make a more "informed" experience about a given place after reading a over number of different people's experiences. I would almost take greater stock in this than just reading one review.

And don't get me wrong: I appreciate the art of the food critic, who has the experience and passion for eating and is able to express much more eloquently than I could ever hope. However, my general feeling about the professional food media is that they offer two things: a) a general, informed view of a topic written for the mass public, and b) an piece of writing to be enjoyed as entertainment as much as information.

I would never want the professional food media to go away, because, after all, someone has to have the well-envied position of being paid to write about food! And as I mentioned earlier, I enjoy reading it.

It's just that, if I were to read about a new place that just opened on Metromix, or in the Sun-Times, or whatever, I would probably also take a couple minutes to see what the folks here at the LTH forum had to say about the place. I've rarely been led astray by the opinions of people here, because for all the people who have "bad" things to say, there's usually someone who has a counterpoint to consider. And usually, if all the opinions are negative, there's probably a good reason for it. So.

On a final note: I couldn't agree more with aschie30, who said that if Batali should have a beef with anyone, it's the NY Post. They're the ones who printed the incorrect information to begin with, and they're the professional outlet! The blogger in question just went with the information, assuming the professional media would have the correct info. This makes no sense to blame the blogger.

muddpuddle wrote:Reading this thread has made me really glad that people don't use their real names. If they did, it would be like the wedding scene in Goodfellas where all the guys were named Peter or Paul and married to girls named Marie. I'd need a sticky at the top of the page to tell the Mikes and Michaels apart!

In fact MikeG's and my real name only vary by 1 letter and the addition of a consonant in my case. Add to that, I am known as MikeG at the other internet place I hang out and yeach, Octarine was an easy choice.

MJN wrote:I'd like to see big bad Batali write the same rant against Frank Bruni...I'm willing to bet he has some bad blood over Del Posto not getting four stars, which was the entire goal from the beginning. How come he isn't taking them to task.

He wouldn't of course, because no matter how powerful the blog, the NYT can still definitively break him. The only reason Batali is even going after the bloggers is precisely because of their perceived powerless anonymity.

That being said, since I've shaken the tree regarding anonymity with my Newcity column etc, but haven't had much time lately to respond on LTH...I will say that the problem as I see it isn't with the anonymity, as much as it is regarding the psychology of anonymity....when you are not using youyr own name, I believe there's an inherent human tendency to be more free in your language and actions...people will protest and talk about how they've had the same moniker for years, and how everyone knows them etc...but that's just not true...sure many of their peers know, but I bet of the 3,000 registered users on LTH only about 10 of them actually know who MJN (me) was before I put my name in a tagline...GWIV, CATHY2, etc don't neccesarily count in this regard because they've been the visible founders of the forum, and everyone really does know who they are.

Regarding big corporations tempering critics, it's true...I bet the before and after drafts from some critics are very enlightening regarding restaurant reviews...the tendency to avoid being sued is a big damn stick...that being said, you don't necessarily need a big corporation, just a reasonable editor, or a good conscience, frankly most of the folks on this forum do take their role seriously in policing others when they seem to be going off the handle, and in some ways, my concerns about forums and their anonymity is preaching to the choir with many of the users here, but in all fairness, there are some folks who I believe still have an agenda of some kind and it's easier for them to exercise that agenda since they are untethered in all kinds of ways...

I was looking for a post to link this article to, because in Australia a newspaper was successfully sued for a restaurant critique. I quoted this comment above with emphasis mine.

Restaurant owners win libel damages over scathing review after 11 year legal battle: Freedom of speech fears in Australia after newspaper loses epic libel battle after restaurant collapsed

An epic legal battle in Australia over a withering restaurant review by a food critic has finally ended, with a newspaper forced to pay $AUS623,526 [£349,000] for a notorious critique which described the pork belly as “the porcine equal of a parched Weetbix [Weetabix]”

The 2003 review, by Matthew Evans, in the Sydney Morning Herald of plush waterside restaurant Coco Roco provided colourful descriptions of the “soggy blackberries”, “overcooked potatoes”, “outstandingly dull” roast chicken and limoncello oysters that “jangle like a car crash”, before warning readers – perhaps unnecessarily - to “stay home”.
...