Bruno Gets it Wrong with Overpriced Thai Food

I wrote this originally on my blog, but I felt pretty strongly about this and thought LTH would be interested...


Today, Pat Bruno reviews Vong Thai Kitchen in the Sun Times

I know the major dailies are all about providing service these days, so I ask, is it a service to direct your readers to a nine year old place slinging $14 Pad Thai and Panang curry that preys on tourists and the Loop business lunch crowd?

Bruno contends:

Make no mistake about it, you will shell out more money at Vong’s Thai Kitchen than at your basic neighborhood Thai joint. But when it comes to finesse, flavor and atmosphere, Vong’s Thai Kitchen (VTK) steals the show.

I guess he’s never been to Spoon Thai (4608 N. Western) or Silver Spoon Thai (710 N. Rush St.), where the blonde walls are just as glorious as Avec, and the garnishes are carved by hand. Oh, and the Pad Thai is $6.95. Sure the service may not be four star, but it’s friendly and pretty responsive. Besides, at Vong, you’re likely to get an entitled college graduate waiter slumming it for cash while dreaming of making it at Second City or contemplating where they might drink their PBR tonight in Wicker Park instead of thinking about refilling your empty water glass.

It feels like Bruno is just interested in cozying up to famous chefs like the restaurant’s namesake, Jean-Georges Vongerichten. After all, the review is titled, “Currying Favor “. But, that’s not the case.

Bruno says:

“I have no idea if Vongerichten visits VTK Chicago to tweak the menu or to change this dish or add that flavor.”

Well, Pat, I know with your “freelance” career working as the sole reviewer for the Sun Times, you probably no longer have time for real journalism, but I bet if you called and asked Vongerichten, he would have given you the answer.

Regarding the food, Bruno says:

The “logs” of tender and flavorful pork, stacked askew, were quite delicious. And the tidy small salad on one end of the plate was quite good, too.

I don’t understand how a high priced long serving wordsmith gets away like using trite adjectives like “delicious” and “good”. At least Rachael Ray came up with Yum-O.

Anyways, make no mistake about it. I’m not being snarky for snark’s sake. Pat Bruno has a responsibility to his readers, and part of that responsibility is to find great places that his readers would not otherwise find. Likewise if he can find them at a value and from locally based entrepreneurs and chefs slinging their own blood, sweat, and tears and not celebrity mega-chefs who own twenty other restaurants and spend the bulk of their time in New York City, then he’s really on to something.

Nine years ago when Arun’s was hot and Vong was opening, maybe this was a good review. Now it’s not even topical. Bruno should be writing a piece on how Arun’s can still get away with charging $70-80 bucks for what’s now generally available at clean, friendly, value-priced, and authentic neighborhood Thai spots like Spoon, TAC Quick, and Sticky Rice.

Not only that, but these neighborhood spots execute just as well or better than Vong on accessible dishes like Pad Thai, satay, and basic curries. Silver Spoon’s crab Rangoon is one of ther better versions in the city. Better yet, once folks walk in the door and work their way through the familiar Thai-American fare, there’s a whole world of regional delicacies to discover from funky Issan Sausage to dried beef jerky to banana blossom salad that really celebrate what Thai cooking and culture is all about.

Bruno might contend that his wide reading audience (read, Grabowski rubes) isn’t ready for an authentic experience and that he’s fulfilling his mission. Well, I’m part of that reading audience, and I’m the Polish son of a blue collar tool and die maker from suburban Detroit and I’m interested. As far as the rest of the reading public, they had no problem looking beyond burritos as big as their head and deep fried chimichangas to eat Rick Bayless’s Oaxacan moles, so why won’t they do the same with Thai?

Michael, you're preaching to the choir, bro!

Does anyone really care what Pat Bruno has to say? Positive reviews of notable places that are under the radar would, in my opinion, be a much more effective and graceful way to advocate for them than contesting the opinion of a critic who's clearly out of touch to begin with. But by criticizing Bruno's opinion, you actually bring attention to it and help perpetuate the otherwise fading belief that he's someone whose opinion matters. It doesn't.

Come on, Mike . . . you're above this stuff. Critique the restaurants, not the critics.

=R=

Ronnie,

It does matter.

It doesn't matter to us, because we're so entrenched in the system and focus our daily lives on finding the best edible goods, but for thousands of Chicagoan's, some of those even striving to learn more about good food, his word is huge. Even if what he's writing about it is irrelevant, his power isn't. Getting him or whoever the next person who will take his place someday to understand that can go a long way to improving the food chain for people in Chicago.

Chicago's ascension into the best food city ranks I believe was hampered for years in part because of many writer's love affairs with old school bloody bordelaise steak presentations and deep dish pizza.

I agree with you that spending time on restaurant's that matter is important, but in this particular criticism, I do just that...I discuss three much better options than Vong, thus killing two birds with one stone.

I understand MJN's impulse. Sometimes, I'll read or hear a review that totally torques me out, making me so mad I almost can't...eat. Apparently, that was close to the effect this review had on MJN, though there's surely no shortage of reviews to take shots at. One source of "reviews" that I find personally revolting is the new Metromix video reviews; the Wife and I were watching one last night, featuring a spiky-haired nincompoop, and we both turned to each other at just about the same moment to say, "What a d**k!"

All's I'm saying is, if you love food as much as we all do here, it's not difficult to find yourself getting angry at the words of reviewers of both older and newer schools.

I thought Vongerichten no longer had anything to do with VTK. Didn't he sell it off quite a while ago?

Anyway, yeah, VTK doesn't reflect well on either Thai food or Vongerichten (a chef for whom, despite his numerous satellite restaurants, I have enormous respect).

Not to beat a dead horse, but this topic pushes my curmudgeony buttons. Bruno was irrelevant 20 years ago. His positive or negative reviews had microscopic impact on a given restaurant's business even back then, and his writing style hasn't improved. He is the worst, but I would argue, most of our other "official reviewers" in Chicago are all the more reason to turn to LTH for dining decisions.
Most of our town's formal reviews should be read for their unintended entertainment value. End of bitchy rant.

MJN wrote:Pat Bruno has a responsibility to his readers, and part of that responsibility is to find great places that his readers would not otherwise find.

I'm not sure that is the charge from his employers. It certainly isn't Phil Vettel's.

Aaron Deacon wrote:

MJN wrote:Pat Bruno has a responsibility to his readers, and part of that responsibility is to find great places that his readers would not otherwise find.

I'm not sure that is the charge from his employers. It certainly isn't Phil Vettel's.

Vettel's beat seems to be high-end, high-visibility restaurants; Bruno may skew a little lower.

MJN wrote:Ronnie,

It does matter.

It doesn't matter to us, because we're so entrenched in the system and focus our daily lives on finding the best edible goods, but for thousands of Chicagoan's, some of those even striving to learn more about good food, his word is huge. Even if what he's writing about it is irrelevant, his power isn't. Getting him or whoever the next person who will take his place someday to understand that can go a long way to improving the food chain for people in Chicago.

Chicago's ascension into the best food city ranks I believe was hampered for years in part because of many writer's love affairs with old school bloody bordelaise steak presentations and deep dish pizza.

I agree with you that spending time on restaurant's that matter is important, but in this particular criticism, I do just that...I discuss three much better options than Vong, thus killing two birds with one stone.

David Hammond wrote:I understand MJN's impulse. Sometimes, I'll read or hear a review that totally torques me out, making me so mad I almost can't...eat. Apparently, that was close to the effect this review had on MJN, though there's surely no shortage of reviews to take shots at. One source of "reviews" that I find personally revolting is the new Metromix video reviews; the Wife and I were watching one last night, featuring a spiky-haired nincompoop, and we both turned to each other at just about the same moment to say, "What a d**k!"

All's I'm saying is, if you love food as much as we all do here, it's not difficult to find yourself getting angry at the words of reviewers of both older and newer schools.

I understand and agree completely with the impulse. The guy is maddening. But, it's the actions that raise a red flag for me. Frankly, the standards for you 2 gentlemen are different than they are for many of us, because you are both professional journalists. I have no problem when a 'civilian' rips on an annoying review. Actually, I have no problem with the rant at the top of this thread. I just believe that, coming from a professional journalist, it looks, well, unprofessional and petty.

It's my belief that going after another journalist over his or her point of view actually diminishes the opinion of the journalist doing the attacking. As a reader, my first thought was "why does he do this? He's so much better than this." Perhaps I'm alone in that sentiment. In either case, I'm not claiming that there's a right or wrong here. I'm merely addressing my personal perception of the situation.

=R=

David Hammond wrote:

Aaron Deacon wrote:

MJN wrote:Pat Bruno has a responsibility to his readers, and part of that responsibility is to find great places that his readers would not otherwise find.

I'm not sure that is the charge from his employers. It certainly isn't Phil Vettel's.

Vettel's beat seems to be high-end, high-visibility restaurants; Bruno may skew a little lower.

I agree with that sentiment. It's not the charge of his employers, but at least they have Monica Eng as a foil. Bruno I think has wider lattitude. That being said, I think even Vettel has a responsibility to up his game no matter what the charge.

Okay, as is my wont, I’ll disagree a little here—under my assumed name and without full disclosure of my identity. Lest anyone misunderstand, I am not mounting a defense of Bruno. I don't have the emotional capital invested to care about him personally as much as others here do. But I do care about personal responsibility for writing.

MJN wrote:is it a service to direct your readers to a nine year old place slinging $14 Pad Thai and Panang curry that preys on tourists and the Loop business lunch crowd?

That’s your opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion just as much as Bruno is entitled to his.

MJN wrote:I guess he’s never been to Spoon Thai (4608 N. Western) or Silver Spoon Thai (710 N. Rush St.)...

While his experiences (if any) in those or any other places is relevant, he is entitled to use any reasonable standard of measurement that he wants; it doesn’t have to be the same as yours.

MJN wrote:Besides, at Vong, you’re likely to get an entitled college graduate waiter slumming it for cash while dreaming of making it at Second City or contemplating where they might drink their PBR tonight in Wicker Park instead of thinking about refilling your empty water glass.

Glad you're having a good time here but I’m not quite sure how this points up a fault with Bruno’s review. A "college graduate waiter slumming it for cash" could be a good server, couldn't he (or she)?

MJN wrote:It feels like Bruno is just interested in cozying up to famous chefs like the restaurant’s namesake, John Georges Vongerichten.

Actually, that would be Jean-Georges.

MJN wrote:Well, Pat, I know with your “freelance” career working as the sole reviewer for the Sun Times, you probably no longer have time for real journalism....

How does a sarcastic personal attack strengthen your argument?

MJN wrote:I don’t understand how a high priced long serving wordsmith gets away like using trite adjectives like “delicious” and “good”.

I don’t have any idea what Bruno makes and I’m impressed that you do. But whatever that number is, it’s irrelevant: how does his salary have anything to do with this? I agree completely with your substantive point that “delicious” and “good” are hardly sufficient although I would have less of a problem if the review explained what he meant. It’s completely lazy to rely on it as I must presume he does here, since I didn’t see the original review. It would be lazy of anyone to do so, regardless of salary or time served.

MJN wrote:Anyways, make no mistake about it. I’m not being snarky for snark’s sake.

Oh, I'm sorry; as long as you’re being snarky for some other reason, I guess it's okay. Everyone welcomes legitimate criticism; even I. And I have no personal brief for Mr. Bruno. But how about letting facts and reasoned criticism take the place of personal animus and snarkiness?

MJN wrote:Pat Bruno has a responsibility to his readers, and part of that responsibility is to find great places that his readers would not otherwise find. Likewise if he can find them at a value and from locally based entrepreneurs and chefs slinging their own blood, sweat, and tears and not celebrity mega-chefs who own twenty other restaurants and spend the bulk of their time in New York City, then he’s really on to something.

Ah, so the reading public is not entitled to reviews of places that are (a) easy to find or (b) owned by celebrity mega-chefs? I agree entirely with your second sentence and, yes, I appreciate learning about new places that I didn’t know about. It hardly follows that I don’t want to hear about places that are easy to find or that I already know exist. Places get better and get worse over time. As you point out at the beginning, VTK has been around for a while. Is it unreasonable for me to want to read a review precisely for that reason?

MJN wrote:Bruno should be writing a piece on....

No. If that’s what you think should be written, write it. Criticizing Bruno for what the Sun-Times is willing to pay for is a little misplaced. As you undoubtedly know better than I, there are a lot of factors that go into what he writes—and what they publish. Attacking him for the substance of a review is fair; attacking his choice of a place to review is unfair.

That’s not to say that the piece you’re suggesting should be written isn’t interesting or well worth reading; maybe the Sun-Times won’t pay for it. How is that Bruno’s fault? Are you privy to what he might have suggested? I don't care what he's written in the past and what his track record is, unless you know the facts behind the decision to publish this particular piece, you're out of bounds in laying the blame entirely on Bruno.

MJN wrote:Better yet, once folks walk in the door and work their way through the familiar Thai-American fare, there’s a whole world of regional delicacies to discover from funky Issan Sausage to dried beef jerky to banana blossom salad that really celebrate what Thai cooking and culture is all about.

Absolutely right.

MJN wrote:Bruno might contend that his wide reading audience (read, Grabowski rubes) isn’t ready for an authentic experience and that he’s fulfilling his mission.

Isn’t that called setting up a straw man? Bruno said no such thing and it’s presumptuous to put words in his mouth. You’re assuming that he might say that. He might; he might not. The fact is that he didn’t. And demolishing the defense he didn't make doesn't strike me as adding to the conversation.

Make no mistake: I have absolutely no problem with saying he’s wrong. None whatsoever. If his review is wrong, lacks substance, is poorly reasoned or even poorly written, that's all fair game. But why can’t your response focus on the review instead instead of what is either an ad hominem attack or a complaint about what he didn’t say or didn’t write about?

ronnie_suburban wrote:

MJN wrote:Ronnie,

I understand and agree completely with the impulse. The guy is maddening. But, it's the actions that raise a red flag for me. Frankly, the standards for you 2 gentlement are different than they are for many of us, because you are both professional journalists. I have no problem when a 'civilian' rips on an annoying review. Actually, I have no problem with the rant at the top of this thread. I just believe that, coming from a professional journalist, it looks, well, unprofessional and petty.

It's my belief that going after another journalist over his or her point of view actually diminishes the opinion of the journalist doing the attacking. As a reader, my first thought was "why does he do this? He's so much better than this." Perhaps I'm alone in that sentiment. In either case, I'm not claiming that there's a right or wrong here. I'm merely addressing my personal perception of the situation.

=R=

I don't understand what's unprofessional about it. Isn't the role of a journalist to engage in a dialogue toward improvement, even with other journalists? I wasn't "going after him". I think what I said was pretty well grounded. I didn't call Pat Bruno a "fat stupid old man who wouldn't know a canneloni from a can of whoop ass and that I hope his cat dies " or something. I have no personal beef with the man. From what I hear, he's a really good guy and a relatively knowledable gourmand.

As for being a professional journalist or being a civilian on "LTH", I'm not sure that line is so clear. As far as food writing goes, I'm almost willing to bet that a single post by you or hammond or wiv or me on LTH or EGullet has as much or more impact in Chicagoland than a column written by me in Newcity, so if there's any responsibility, I think it may exist in both directions. Not to mention, I wrote the piece for Hungry which makes no profit. The few ads I run under the fold basically pay for hosting and sometimes not even.

Only two years ago I managed e-commerce and web design and I was a "civilian" posting here. It's only my passion for food and my desire to get it right and the great community here that made me a "professional". All I'm arguing for with the above, is that Bruno also strive to check in again with his obvious passion for food and try and get it right.

All I'm arguing for with the above, is that Bruno also strive to check in again with his obvious passion for food and try and get it right

He gave Vong's one star out of four - sounds to me like he did get it right, even if his writing style left much to be desired. Of his last 20 or so reviews, this is the only one with that low a rating. I think the above rant is misleading in that regard, and in its similar neglect to cite the rather harsh criticism Bruno laid on some of the dishes he tried.

This is quite an exchange; one of those dialogs that seem like they could happen only on LTH. I mean, where else?

Anyway, there's a principle here that I'm still working through in my own mind. To what extent is it kosher, acceptable, appropriate, or even professional for Anthony Bourdain to make snide comments about Rachel Ray, or for Keith Richards to make disparaging remarks about Jimmy Page, or for one professional athlete to criticize another (I'd use names for examples here, but the only sport I follow is competitive eating and those guys never trash talk one another)?

I understand when professional courtesy prohibits one from making certain comments about other professionals, but if it's only courtesy that's getting in the way, then isn't there a time to say, Screw it; I'm just going to say what I think about this.

I am not assessing the quality of MJN's argument (note to self: do not get into debate with Gypsy Boy), but rather his right to make it, and it's tough for me to say he doesn't have that right.

David Hammond wrote:I am not assessing the quality of MJN's argument (note to self: do not get into debate with Gypsy Boy), but rather his right to make it, and it's tough for me to say he doesn't have that right.

David, as I tried to sum up at the end, I have no problem with substantive criticisms. But once we lower the level of discourse to the personal--whether it be snideness, snarkiness, or ad hominem attacks--how can we ever restore the line? At the risk of overstating my case, isn't the loss of civility a step in the descent toward chaos? Frankly, much as I enjoy him, that's one problem I have with Bourdain. He seems almost congenitally incapable of knowing when enough's enough.

If Bruno's wrong, he's wrong. But why isn't it enough to demolish his arguments? Why do we have to address unrelated points ("Why didn't he write the article or address the issue that I think is important?") or drag the person into it?

ronnie_suburban wrote:

MJN wrote:Ronnie,

I understand and agree completely with the impulse. The guy is maddening. But, it's the actions that raise a red flag for me. Frankly, the standards for you 2 gentlement are different than they are for many of us, because you are both professional journalists. I have no problem when a 'civilian' rips on an annoying review. Actually, I have no problem with the rant at the top of this thread. I just believe that, coming from a professional journalist, it looks, well, unprofessional and petty.

It's my belief that going after another journalist over his or her point of view actually diminishes the opinion of the journalist doing the attacking. As a reader, my first thought was "why does he do this? He's so much better than this." Perhaps I'm alone in that sentiment. In either case, I'm not claiming that there's a right or wrong here. I'm merely addressing my personal perception of the situation.

=R=

I don't understand what's unprofessional about it. Isn't the role of a journalist to engage in a dialogue toward improvement, even with other journalists? I wasn't "going after him". I think what I said was pretty well grounded. I didn't call Pat Bruno a "fat stupid old man who wouldn't know a canneloni from a can of whoop ass and that I hope his cat dies " or something. I have no personal beef with the man. From what I hear, he's a really good guy and a relatively knowledable gourmand.

As for being a professional journalist or being a civilian on "LTH", I'm not sure that line is so clear. As far as food writing goes, I'm almost willing to bet that a single post by you or hammond or wiv or me on LTH or EGullet has as much or more impact in Chicagoland than a column written by me in Newcity, so if there's any responsibility, I think it may exist in both directions. Not to mention, I wrote the piece for Hungry which makes no profit. The few ads I run under the fold basically pay for hosting and sometimes not even.

Only two years ago I managed e-commerce and web design and I was a "civilian" posting here. It's only my passion for food and my desire to get it right and the great community here that made me a "professional". All I'm arguing for with the above, is that Bruno also strive to check in again with his obvious passion for food and try and get it right.

Oh, Mike . . . so much here and it's an interesting discussion. I'm not sure where the line is. Again, I'm talking about (and can only talk about) my perception. I see the journalist's job as primarily to report. I understand that a column is a different matter but if you feel so strongly about Mr. Bruno's failings, perhaps the place to address that would be directly with him, privately. Putting it in your column does nothing for the reader. It plays like grandstanding, not that you intended it to be so.

If your column had been 100% about Thai places you love, and contained no mention at all of Mr. Bruno, nothing would have been lost. I contend that it would have even been more useful to me as a reader in that form. The stuff about Bruno feels personal and dilutes the primary message about the food. Or, is the primary message about the failings of contemporary food journalism? If so, save the message about great Thai for another column so that it doesn't feel secondary. Sure it's ok for journalists to examine all sides but when they're all addressed together, all in the same column, things muddy. The bottom line here is that if all you truly want is for Bruno to "...check in again with his obvious passion for food and try and get it right" there's no reason your message to him needs to appear in your column.

Your recently-adapted and rapidly-developing existence on the "professional" side of the fence do not disqualify your status as a professional. You are a pro. Whether it matters or not is another question. A griping foodie complaining about a critic? That's fine in my book. But another pro? It just seems self-indulgent and self-serving to me. I figure that through skilled writing the reader ultimately finds the great writers. I certainly don't need a writer to help me decide who can and who cannot write. I'll decide for myself, thank you very much.

Perhaps this is a case of "you had me at hello." Mike, you're a knowledgeable guy with great communication skills and you come off just like that. But when I see you going after guys like Bruno, I shake my head. We already know you're beyond the guy. Any informed reader would know that. And the uninformed? You're not going to change their minds anyway.

=R=

GypsyBoy, you make good points. I'll skip quoting, so this doesn't turn into a super long post.

I never said Bruno wasn't entitled to his opinion, just that I disagreed with his. Bruno basically makes the assertion in his review, that Vong is pretty much superior to your local Thai joint in finesse, ambience etc. I'm just rebutting him saying, check out Spoon, TAC etc. I bet if he did he'd recognize that the food and ambience is probably as good as Jean-Georges or better in some cases.

As far as the crack about college graduate waiters. I wasn't saying they couldn't be good waiters. I was saying there is a class of college graduate waiters in restaurants who see waiting as "slumming it" and biding their time, and those who do so, are often bad servers.

I should have gotten "John Georges" as "Jean Georges" right, no excuse for that...

The crack about not pursuing journalism was sarcastic, but it was also true. He should have called Jean-Georges. Two years ago Bruno made a similar assertion about Shawn McClain not being in the kitchen at Custom House on a night that McClain insists he most definitely was.

Well salary is relevent in the sense that, to whom much is given, much should be expected.

I don't really see anything in my response as a personal attack. As pointed above, I didn't say "Pat should die or something." I honestly made this argument because I think he has a great platform and he should use it in a different way. You're right that's my opinion. If you believe that Vong's $14 Pad Thai and investment in ambience is way better than a visit to Spoon, then I can see where you're coming from.

I do think older places can and should be reviewed as a rule. Likewise no reason you can't cover celebrity mega-chefs, but the way I see it Bruno has 52 reviews a year, and with 12,000 restaurants in Chicago, I do believe he offers more value to the reader by looking for places that they would not otherwise find on their own.

I'm pretty sure from speaking with folks that Bruno has his choice of what to review, and I'm willing to bet the Sun Times would love an article about whether Arun's is relevant anymore...since he has some lattitude, I'm making a suggestion that he consider this, not requiring it.

My assertion about the Grabowski comment is that my experience is when I speak with editors and writers at the big pubs about their coverage, they always talk about "the big tent" and "the average reader"...you're right, maybe Bruno feels as I do, and his editors keep him down based on their conceptions...

Finally, while you jab at me about snark, you do start out your review with the comment "I’ll disagree a little here—under my assumed name and without full disclosure of my identity."

Seems pretty disingenuous to hit me up about my snarkiness when you're being snarky too.

Either way, like I said, you make good points. I'm prepared to die by sword if I live by it, and I can understand if my writing came off as holier than, but it was not my intention. As I try to acknowledge as much as possible, though I didn't here, I make mistakes too, I've probably overlooked certain restaurants and I've made bad assumptions, and I've certainly used poor adjectives to describe food. I do feel this isn't the rule for me though...I do think that Bruno has established a track record worth speaking about though...

Ronnie,

One thing I would respond to, is the idea of talking to Pat privately....if I did, then we wouldn't have this lively and I think ultimately enlightening and productive discussion on LTH. I think Pat wants or would like this kind of discussion. Otherwise he wouldn't be a public critic. He'd go to the restaurants and have private discussions with chefs.

Likewise learning yours and Gypsyboy's response to this type of writing is also valuable to me as a writer in understanding whether I'm turning folks off or actually achieving my goal of having a discussion about something I care passionately about.

Hammond's question about Bourdain etc is a very provocative one and worth exploring...I gotta step out right now, but I hope to see some responses on that...

Michael, thanks for the thoughtful response.

As I think you understand, my disagreement wasn't about disagreeing with Bruno. It was about the tone and degree of "personal" in it that bothered me. I think you made a number of strong, worthwhile points, but I think you diminished the force of your critique by taking some cheap shots. That others, like Ronnie, seemed to read you the same way, I take to mean that I'm not alone.

I agree that Bruno should have called Jean Georges; I don't know that the sarcasm wasn't over the line--although admittedly the line is fuzzy. As to salary, I guess we'll have to disagree: if you have a public forum such as the Sun-Times, I don't care if they pay you ten cents: you have obligations: ethical, substantive, etc. Much should be expected of anyone with that forum, the less-well-paid no less than the big earners.

We'll also have to disagree about the "personal attack." I think that some of your comments can be construed that way. One need not sink to the level of "Pat should die" to be considered as engaging in such attacks.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in your assertion that Bruno has a great platform. Whether he should use it in a different way is a valid argument. I just think you tried to attack on too many fronts. That's a different post than one discussing what he said about a particular restaurant. So too with your statement that he has his choice of what to review. If that's so, that changes things. But you didn't make that clear. I think we're pretty much in agreement on where you're going, but it's a different article.

Last but hardly least, my opening comment was a possibly-uncalled-for jab. I have no doubt that you recall your piece about taking personal responsibility by signing one's "real" name. This is something we honestly disagree on. But although it may have been personal (and lost on many people), I don't believe it was snarky. Because I truly believe what others have said and written about my "reputation" on this board being under the name "Gypsy Boy." Adding my real name adds nothing. But that's a whole other discussion we can have some other day.

Let me be clear, lest I've lost anyone: I think Michael/MJN had some good ideas and some valid criticisms. I think his post suffered because of what I read as personal animus and as off-the-point or irrelevant criticisms. I value his contributions here--and elsewhere--and just want to hold him to the standard I hold myself (and everyone else) to. I know he's capable of it because he's already done it many times over.

Let me bring some 5th grade levity to the room:

The “logs” of tender and flavorful pork

Tee-hee. Snicker.

Seriously. Logs? When was that ever appetizing?

I'm such a wimp, I see validity in points Ronnie S, Gypys, Hammond AND MJN are making. Still, with all of the things brought up by Gypsy Boy and Ronnie, I appreciate the totality of the Michael's rant. Maybe if each word was not right, it's the issue that's at stake.

And it's an issue that dovetails right along TOC's latest issue/Hammond's concurrent thread on LTH. It's a question of who's opinion matters. It's not so much the specifics of MJN's thrust at Bruno or the fact that its Bruno per se. It's the battle about who's a critic. Right now, there seems to be push back from the mainstream, at least as somewhat represented in this week's TOC. While Michael Nagrant is a "Pro" in the sense that his work is in Chicago Mag, New City and his blog, he's still a lot closer to one of us (same with Hammond). Put it this way, the current restaurant critic of the NYTimes was a mediocre political reporter. Bruno's background is in housewares. I'm happy lining up behind Nagrant.

What I hear Michael saying, loud and with all the force of the ought's snark, is that who you telling not to have a voice. When Bruno's your voice. Pat Bruno's an easy target but maybe a necessary target. Maybe it's not fair, but its like in this game of Pro's vs. Joe's, Bruno's on their team. The points MJN makes about what is reviewed, the context of what is reviewed, the expertise in knowing the cuisine; these are topics worth discussing, and worth discussing more than ever given the current climate.

Vital Information wrote:I appreciate the totality of the Michael's rant. Maybe if each word was not right, it's the issue that's at stake.

I agree with this.

And I didn't have a problem making the points about Thai food and Pat Bruno together in the same article.

It seems to me like there is a long tradition, especially in a town with such a rich media history, of reporters and critics calling each other out.

Doesn't John Kass like to rib Sun-Times reporters about their coverage of Mayor Daley? Sure, Kass is a polarizing figure (with atrocious taste in BBQ ), but I enjoy that kind of back and forth. What about Siskel and Ebert? The Sound Opinions guys, Jim DeRogaitis and Greg Kot? I like to see critics and media professionals mix it up a bit.

I certainly didn't see him taking cheap shots at Bruno, but it is interesting to me (and no doubt to MJN) that others do.

I've been reading this thread with fascination most of this afternoon. As one who was a reviewer (and threatened twice to boot) and who still sort of has a hand in the game, the back and forth here has really illuminating. Thank you all.
What made me want to write in was that growing question of who's the critic or, more exactly, who's "qualified" to be the critic in today's world of multiple media sources, from newspapers to magazines to radio to tv to webcasts to podcasts to blogs, etc. The yardstick I always use in beginning my decision of whether to believe the reviewer or not is the guideline developed by the Association of Food Journalists back in 2001.
I'm biased, because I lead the committee that came up with the guidelines and later was AFJ president, but I think the points are very valid. Not everyone buys them, eGullet has been the scene of many a battle over them, but I think they provide a launching pad for discussion. I'd post them here - but I know you folks get leary about that - so go to the web site, www.afjonline.com - and take a look.
All the best, Bill.
p.s. thanks to all of you who have contributed web sites on my thread below. much appreciated.

billdaley wrote:Not everyone buys them, eGullet has been the scene of many a battle over them, but I think they provide a launching pad for discussion. I'd post them here - but I know you folks get leary about that - so go to the web site, www.afjonline.com - and take a look.

I'm not sure what you mean by leary, though we do try to respect copyright: quote salient points rather than the full text. If that is not an issue, then post away.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by leary

I think he's implying we're all stoners.

Hardly! LOL.
I should have typed leery instead of leary. Sorry. I'd say it was the chablis at lunch but someone would believe me. In any case, don't digress, please. Let's return to the point of the thread or check out AFJ's guidelines or something other than my spelling.

Has anyone here been to Vong Thai Kitchen? I couldn't find a thread. Maybe I missed it.

MJN wrote:One thing I would respond to, is the idea of talking to Pat privately....if I did, then we wouldn't have this lively and I think ultimately enlightening and productive discussion on LTH.

For me, this is where the line really blurs. I consider this discussion to be a product of your being a part of this community, not your profession as journalist. You wrote the piece and it may exist in other venues but the discussion is here and it is LTHForum.com's raison d'etre. I'm also not so sure how productive it is either, because I'm not really certain how -- or if -- it will affect what comes next, although it's definitely interesting to me.

=R=

Louisa Chu wrote:Has anyone here been to Vong Thai Kitchen? I couldn't find a thread. Maybe I missed it.

Hi Louisa,

I checked also to not even find a passing comment.

Regards,
CAthy