David Hammond wrote:I believe I've detected a certain knee-jerk animosity toward "established" critics like Vettel et al. It's almost as though those of us to spend much time talking chow on the internet hold these older school critics in something like barely concealed contempt. Not that these critics don't deserve some criticism, but it sometimes seems that if you write for pulp paper-based media, you are, ipso facto, understood to be uninformed...or at least not nearly as informed as those of us who post electronically. As writers in a relatively "young" media, we may be displaying something akin to the arrogance of youth.

Isn't another part of it simple jealousy? I say that with no condemnation of it at all; it would be unnatural for it not to be present in this situation. There are any number of people here who know (correctly) that they could do a better job than the newspaper critics. Some of these people freelance for regional and national magazines, some write for alternative weeklies and commercial websites, some have blogs, and some just post here. Why wouldn't they covet the very few positions of greater influence in this city, positions that are currently filled by less-worthy occupants? And how could this covetousness not lead to contempt?

Gypsy Boy wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:Well, there's no need to worry about the peripheral details like the facts when the opinions are so bold and spicy.

=R=

"Ronald Suburban, get in here this minute. Just who do you think you are, Mr. Know-It-All, with your fancy pants, smart-alecky words? If you can't say something nice...."

Mama Gypsy Boy
(whose influence on her own son was, apparently, somewhat less than decisive)

I'm sorry. You're right mama.

What I meant to say is that while having a strong opinion about something can be an important part of excellent journalism, to me it isn't the only part or even the most important part.

=R=

elakin wrote:

what i think we're seeing here is indicative of the sort of "changing of the guard" that is happening wrt food journalism.

as someone who works in the industry, and has had my share of restaurants i've worked at reviewed by the "big boys" at the trib, sun-times, and chicago magazine, i am convinced that bloggers like MJN are actually *more* knowledgable than guys like bruno.

it stems from passion. writing about food for 20+ years dulls one's passion for it. people that blog about food or are heavily participating in sites like this one are more passionate, and will dedicate more time and energy into doing research, making multiple visits, asking questions, trying other restaurants, etc. it's just that simple.

There's a lot of truth to what you say, but I believe I've detected a certain knee-jerk animosity toward "established" critics like Vettel et al. It's almost as though those of us to spend much time talking chow on the internet hold these older school critics in something like barely concealed contempt. Not that these critics don't deserve some criticism, but it sometimes seems that if you write for pulp paper-based media, you are, ipso facto, understood to be uninformed...or at least not nearly as informed as those of us who post electronically. As writers in a relatively "young" media, we may be displaying something akin to the arrogance of youth.

i'm sure that's part of it, David, but let me tell you something; over the years i've worked at Spruce, Lula, Tru, Roy's, Nacional 27, and others. All of those restaurants were reviewed by the Trib, Sun-Times, and Chicago Magazine. and i cannot remember one single solitary review that didn't contain at least one glaring factual error. one that could've been corrected by a simple fact-checking phone call.


i have a lot of respect for the print/paper journalism over at Time Out Chicago. they do their research and it shows.

i don't think it is, for the most part, arrogance. i think the reviewers who are disdained pretty much deserve it.

the bruno piece that inspired this topic is a perfect example. it's an uninspired, phoned-in review of a boring restaurant that no one really cares much about in the first place. the piece is just about filling column space--nothing more.

i believe the original poster is dead-on with his critique. and i don't think it's got anything to do with the fact that he's a food blogger or that he's suffering from the "arrogance of youth". he may be arrogant, but that in no way detracts from his point.

FWIW, MJN is aka Michael Nagrant, who has written about food for New City, TOC, Chicago Magazine, Center Stage, etc. So it is a sort of inside-the-industry critique

gleam wrote:FWIW, MJN is aka Michael Nagrant, who has written about food for New City, TOC, Chicago Magazine, Center Stage, etc. So it is a sort of inside-the-industry critique

It's all media industry, true, but MJN is kind of in both old and new media, print and podcasts.

Yes, absolutely, but he's not just a food blogger or frequent poster here. Was just clearing it up for those who might not know.

thanks. i didn't know that he'd written for all those publications. i'm just familiar with his blog and podcasts.