Chicagoist and LTH GNR

LTH,

Chicagoist has an interesting take on the LTHForum GNRs. 'Bout gave me a coronary when I saw Sun Wah, my nomination by the way, as the lead.

Enjoy,
Gary

That's just a bizarre article, Gary. Do they often post non-news on the lack of violations at certain places? It's like they're fantasizing about finding something REALLY juicy someday.

Syed at Bhabi's Palace told us three brilliant, poignant, and very revealing stories (embellished or not) about health inspections. I haven't posted them here since the subject is verboten or at least a gray area.

Yeah, fascinating article---restaurants that are ok to eat at.

Perhaps they can provide us with a list of back porches that are safe and which beaches are ok to swim in too.

I'd like a list of which restaurants use incandescent lightbulbs, please, Chicagoist. I also only visit places that have between zero and pi steps up from the ground, and which have at least one cardboard box somewhere on the premises. That LTH site simply doesn't cover the important issues.

Come now, they're providing a valuable public service! Everybody knows we only eat at those dirty ethnic places that probably poison people every day.

Well, if anybody's going to get dragged to one of those LTH places, somebody's got to check and make sure it's OK! I mean, for god's sake, those people eat bugs!

what is chicagoist? that's some seriously uninteresting stuff.

Actually, I posted the link as I thought it an odd/funny, in a fun house mirror as humor, way to view the LTHForum GNRs.

This article once again proves the old adage:

Where there's no smoke, there's no fire.

There are different levels of violations and those noted are generally very minor (even the critical one, btw, since if it was truly serious the place would get closed down - I think it may just mean the dishwasher needed some maintenance), and it is good that the Health Department and Chicagoist are keeping the heat on the restaurants of Chicago to provide us with safe, clean food.

That lets us focus on the quality of the food and experience.

The mods could clarify this, but I do not think it is forbidden to discuss actual Health Code violations here, just accusations. And I know there have been a few threads that discussed the sense, or lack of sense, of certain regulations. After all, not all regulations are created equal - some protect us from very real threats, while others leave one scratching one's head as to exactly what problem they are trying to prevent.

Anyway, my first reaction was that the piece was bizarre, but after thinking about it I found it a tiny bit reassuring that someone went to the trouble to check the track records of the newest GNRs and found them to be very good. Since I am not the type to worry about that stuff, it is good that someone else is looking out for me.

Thank you Chicagoist - it's a dirty job and I am glad you are doing it so I do not have to.

Well, I think the article addresses a very interesting subject, though perhaps not the one Chicagoist intends

What I was alluding to (in an admittedly snide and sarcastic manner) is that among many, there exists a perception that restaurants of the kind LTH frequently honors (i.e. small, inexpensive, ethnic, mom & pop) may be tasty, but they're also dangerous. Nevermind the number of very upscale, expensive joints that also violate health code. I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong, but I doubt Chicagoist gives the same treatment to Zagat's yearly additions, or Vettel's favorites of the year, or Time Out's Top 100 Eats. The very existence of this article says a lot less about the actual GNR winners, I think, than it does about their readership's and staff's irrational prejudice when it comes to restaurants that might be a little rough around the edges or, more frequently, are simply somewhat spartan when it comes to decor. I'm less convinced that articles like this serve to ease those fears by demonstrating that this year's GNRs are okay, and more convinced that it actually serves to reinforce those fears by playing along with the idea that there's something to be afraid of in the first place.

Dom,

An astute analysis and I agree with you. The very fact that they feel that inspection of this information is needed for GNR-style restaurants clearly reinforces a prejudice.

Although, rather than the 4-star restaurants, I would like to see Chicagoist apply the same treatment to the run-of-the-mill restaurants that cater to your everyday eater in hip neighborhoods.

A much more interesting story would be a write up of the online inspection database, how it gets updated by the city, what the ratings mean, and how the interested public can use it for themselves.

Best,
Michael

Dmnkly wrote:I'm less convinced that articles like this serve to ease those fears by demonstrating that this year's GNRs are okay, and more convinced that it actually serves to reinforce those fears by playing along with the idea that there's something to be afraid of in the first place.

I agree 100% with your analysis, but taking a rosier view of the effect of the Chicagoist article, I think they looked like the ones with pie on their faces, not LTH.

...there are at least a couple sometime LTH posters who often judge an proposed "ethnic" place by it's reported "cleanliness"

...I always find that approach, to put it mildly, a little freaky

I don't think most of the people reading that website piece delve too deeply into psychoanalyzing the wording or possible intent of the author(s). I think it's humorous.

Hey, the world is full of people who gross out at the thought of a tongue taco, then order "beef" at Taco Bell like it'll be coming from the sirloin.

Dmnkly wrote:Nevermind the number of very upscale, expensive joints that also violate health code.

Let's be fair: At an expensive, upscale joint the guy who handles your money is unlikely to also cook your meal.

Wasn't there a poster here or at CH that used to judge the quality of a place based on how disgusting the bathrooms were? I forget who that was, but I do remember some posts about places on Devon - it made an impression on me, though again not the intended one. I did not want to go to the places any more or less, I just wanted the poster to go away.

As to reinforcing the fears of those who consider eating in an ethnic restaurant risky somehow, yeah that makes sense. But such people are not really our target audience here, anyway, are they? Local TV news relentlessly panders to fear and schadenfreude, so that is a proven and successful business model. Not saying Chicagoist is intentionally pursuing that model, but I also suspect this thread is driving better than normal traffic to their site, so it is working for them.

Keep in mind that the logical follow up article is to report on our response.

Not like it was the most relevant restaurant before the summer, but I do wonder how Pars Cove has rebounded:

http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.ph ... =pars+cove

That could be an actual story, with a "beginning," a "middle," and something I've once heard about called an "end" or "conclusion." That might be a bit sophisticated a writing technique, though, so I'll back off (or off back).

I don't think most of the people reading that website piece delve too deeply into psychoanalyzing the wording or possible intent of the author(s). I think it's humorous.

Given the kudos (and positive publicity) that chicagoist has given LTHforum--and the GNR awards in particular--previous to this article, I definitely got the impression that it was tongue-in-cheek. I read chicagoist fairly often and they don't strike me as folks who worry too much about "dirty" ethnic restaurants. YMMV.

geli wrote:

I don't think most of the people reading that website piece delve too deeply into psychoanalyzing the wording or possible intent of the author(s). I think it's humorous.

Given the kudos (and positive publicity) that chicagoist has given LTHforum--and the GNR awards in particular--previous to this article, I definitely got the impression that it was tongue-in-cheek. I read chicagoist fairly often and they don't strike me as folks who worry too much about "dirty" ethnic restaurants. YMMV.

I don't mean to come down on Chicagoist in general. Heck, they had some rather nice things to say about my blog, even! But that doesn't put them above taking a constructively-minded shot if the article is earnest. And I don't mean to suggest there's anything wrong with the story... just that it's inadvertently illustrative of a mindset I find frustrating.

If it's tongue-in-cheek, then none of this applies, of course. Not specifically to the Chicagoist article, anyway

HI,

Let's forget about dining. We should only eat BP-5 and Plumpy'Nut.

All problems solved!

Regards,

As someone with a background in journalism, I've taken issue with a few of Chicagoists food articles...their judgment in topics sometimes seems to be lacking. (I've wondered if, in the quest for copy, they just write every article that occurs to them, even if a bit of research disproves their original premise.)

They have a recurring feature that reviews restaurants from the perspective of dining out with kids. They wrote a lousy review of an off-the-beaten-track place, panning it in part because it wasn't child friendly. But it also wasn't a restaurant that advertised being child friendly! I took issue with the review because I think they should focus on reviewing:
1. Restaurants that promote themselves as being child friendly.
2. Popular restaurants that would be likely to attract families, regardless of whether the restaurant advertises itself as child friendly.

But a bad review of a restaurant that isn't on many people's radar screen and doesn't hold itself out to be child friendly? It seems like a silly choice of places to review.

Unrelated...I recently had occassion to talk to Tim Hadac, who's the Chicago Department of Public Health's information officer. He's the one who writes the press releases trumpeting a restaurant's closure. (I called him because I wanted to get the definite answer on whether a collection of restaurants had been closed due to health violations.) He told me, "I have two criteria for whether I issue a press release: How much time do I have? And, will the media be interested in the closure? They [the media] don't care about greasy spoons that get closed."

geli wrote:

I don't think most of the people reading that website piece delve too deeply into psychoanalyzing the wording or possible intent of the author(s). I think it's humorous.

Given the kudos (and positive publicity) that chicagoist has given LTHforum--and the GNR awards in particular--previous to this article, I definitely got the impression that it was tongue-in-cheek. I read chicagoist fairly often and they don't strike me as folks who worry too much about "dirty" ethnic restaurants. YMMV.

I read the Chicagoist all the time and they just launched the Current Conditions weekly roundup last week, I believe. It's actually a decent public service because the Chicago Food Establishment Inspection webpage does not give you a list passing/failing restaurants - you have to search for individual restaurants by street address or name which is rather time-consuming. Since the GNR restaurant list was on their minds, I'm sure Caroline Clough just thought it would be amusing to plug in the newest additions into the Food Establishment Inspection webpage and see what came up.

chgoeditor wrote:But a bad review of a restaurant that isn't on many people's radar screen and doesn't hold itself out to be child friendly?

The supposedly ethical Chicago Tribune did just that in their cheap eats review of Yassa.

dicksond wrote:Wasn't there a poster here or at CH that used to judge the quality of a place based on how disgusting the bathrooms were? I forget who that was, but I do remember some posts about places on Devon - it made an impression on me, though again not the intended one. I did not want to go to the places any more or less, I just wanted the poster to go away.

Perhaps you are thinking of this thread? You don't have to say anything if you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

geli wrote:

I don't think most of the people reading that website piece delve too deeply into psychoanalyzing the wording or possible intent of the author(s). I think it's humorous.

Given the kudos (and positive publicity) that chicagoist has given LTHforum--and the GNR awards in particular--previous to this article, I definitely got the impression that it was tongue-in-cheek. I read chicagoist fairly often and they don't strike me as folks who worry too much about "dirty" ethnic restaurants. YMMV.

I would like to go with your interpretation, but am thrown by the conclusion: "We can say, with a fair amount of certainty, that nothing bad will happen to your belly while eating there...your wallet may be a different matter."

Is this irony? I guess I don't get it.

David Hammond wrote:
I would like to go with your interpretation, but am thrown by the conclusion: "We can say, with a fair amount of certainty, that nothing bad will happen to your belly while eating there...your wallet may be a different matter."

Is this irony? I guess I don't get it.

I took that to mean that nothing bad will happen to your belly, but you might end up spending a fair ammount of money, because the food at these places is good.

Maybe I'm wrong. How did you take it?

tapler wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking of this thread? You don't have to say anything if you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

Nah. You have it backwards. This was a poster who actually liked places with filthy, stinky bathrooms and would post on the bathrooms as part of posts on the food. I am pretty accepting of filth and vermin in real life, but find discussing that to be too much detail (well, actually I do have a fondness for vermin stories, but I draw the line at bathroom filth).

We all have our limits, I suppose.

Was it me? A while back, DH's cow-orker (an Indian guy) said to us that most of the places on Devon used the same premade curry mixes, and had the same items on their buffets, so you might as well go to the one with the cleanest bathroom.