Mike,

Thanks for that very well written response. Like you I work in media, albeit a different one and can appreciate a lot of what you had to say here.

I just wanted to post a very brief note to inform those who may be interested in the ongoing discussion about a critic's responsibilities that I have created a new thread since I don't want to hijack this one.

Gypsy Boy wrote:

riddlemay wrote:Surely it's possible to complain legitimately about a reporter missing a story.

Of course it is. His initial comment was that they didn't answer the question they posed. Then in the next sentence, he conceded that they did actually answer it but that their answer was the same as previously reported elsewhere. So that was never his point (at least as I understood it prior to his most recent--and subsequent--post).

What I focused on is something you're (apparently) missing: what MJN actually said next.

MJN wrote:I’m betting there’s another story here that no one’s gotten to the bottom of….

He did not say that they missed the story; he said that he thought there was another one. Fine. If you think so, go find it and write it. Which he said he might and which I said I'd be eager to read. Genuinely.

My take on the article was that they got all out of Carlson that he's inclined to share. It wasn't a piece of investigative journalism, it was a feature story.

I'm still missing the point. Because I don't see the difference.

While MJN said he thought there was "another story," the other story he was talking about was one that the Tribune article teased, but didn't quite tell. It stopped just slightly short, saying "Carlson will speak of his hiatus only in the vaguest of terms." If the Trib article didn't raise expectations of providing an answer, there would be no complaint. But it did. Therefore, in this case, "missed story" and "another story" are the same thing. It's legitimate to criticize that.

(By the way, my opinion of the Trib article is that it's a fine piece even if it doesn't completely solve the "Big Mystery" that the headline teases, but that's not the point here.)

I'm declining your invitation to post this in your new thread, because 1) your new thread is about restaurant criticism, and this is about restaurant reporting, not restaurant criticism; 2) my post follows up on discussion that's happened on this thread; and 3) the discussion it follows up on concerns an article about Michael Carlson and Schwa.

I don't have any disagreement with your response being posted in this thread; my point was only to place unrelated discussions about a critic's responsibilities elsewhere. Your post clearly relates to Schwa--what this thread is all about. I simply didn't want to hijack the thread.

As to the distinction between a "missed" story and "another" story, I don't think we're likely to agree. As I said before, I don't think Carlson is going to have much, if anything, else to say on the subject. I'm content with the Trib story as written. I think they answered the question they posed as fully and as well as it could be answered in the context of a feature/human interest story.

Gypsy Boy wrote:I think they answered the question they posed as fully and as well as it could be answered in the context of a feature/human interest story.

GB,

Not me, I want to know all about MC's relationship with his wife, his investor father, if there was any intramural rivalry between him and the other chefs, explicit details of all his interactions on the Big Night and, if available, medical records going back to when he was 18.

I want the full damn story, all of it, every tawdry detail. At least I hope they are tawdry, if not maybe we amp it up a bit to make it more interesting. This whole worked too hard, burned out wanted to spend time with the baby bs is boring as hell.

I'm also sensing the timing of Schwa's reopening has something to do with Burt's temporary closing. Coincidence, ha, not a chance.

Regards,
Gary 'National Enquirer' Wiviott

Have you ever seen Burt and MC in the same room, at the same time? I think not. Coincidence? The mystery deepens ...

G Wiv wrote:I'm also sensing the timing of Schwa's reopening has something to do with Burt's temporary closing. Coincidence, ha, not a chance.

Well, um, gosh. I didn't really think it was right to share this (since I learned it on the QT, as they say) but I've been told (don't tell anyone, now) that Michael Carlson is really Burt's...son!



PS Just joking, Burt.

PPS Just joking, Michael.

Gypsy Boy wrote:

G Wiv wrote:I'm also sensing the timing of Schwa's reopening has something to do with Burt's temporary closing. Coincidence, ha, not a chance.

Well, um, gosh. I didn't really think it was right to share this (since I learned it on the QT, as they say) but I've been told (don't tell anyone, now) that Michael Carlson is really Burt's...son!

Naw - it's more a Superman/Clark Kent kind of thing.

LTHForum,

Since this thread has moved away, far away, from culinary chat, partly my fault, I suggest when there are posts on the newly reopened Schwa we start a new thread.

Regards,
Gary

G Wiv wrote:...I want to know all about MC's relationship with his wife, his investor father...and, if available, medical records going back to when he was 18...

It's possible to reduce any argument to an absurdity. That doesn't mean the public lacks a legitimate interest in knowing what went on at (and with) Schwa that led to its closing.

The Trib article took us about 90% of the way there, which was creditable. The question is, if it took us the rest of the way, would it be descending into National Enquirer territory? Or would it be more comparable to the thorough feature reporting we've become accustomed to from The Wall Street Journal? I don't know the answer, but I do know that no one else does, either, because it wasn't done.

riddlemay wrote:That doesn't mean the public lacks a legitimate interest in knowing what went on at (and with) Schwa that led to its closing.

Personally, I find this even more absurd. If this was a financial institution, a publicly traded company, or a public welfare organization, then you have a point.

This was a privately held business that was closed by it's owner for private reasons. They were not shut down by the government. The public has no legitimate interest in Mr. Carlson's private affairs, even if you were a customer who paid for services rendered in the past or even had a reservation to do so in the future. The public is merely curious.

Curiosity does not equal legitimate interest.

eatchicago wrote:Personally, I find this even more absurd. If this was a financial institution, a publicly traded company, or a public welfare organization, then you have a point.

This was a privately held business that was closed by it's owner for private reasons. They were not shut down by the government. The public has no legitimate interest in Mr. Carlson's private affairs, even if you were a customer who paid for services rendered in the past or even had a reservation to do so in the future. The public is merely curious.

Curiosity does not equal legitimate interest.

You raise a good question implicitly, Michael, but I think the question has an answer. The answer is that if issues of temperament and personality were among the factors, these are issues that could affect one's future experience at Schwa. These issues, if they exist, may or may not be "dealbreakers," especially considering the quality of the food at Schwa, but if they do exist, any potential customer has a legitimate interest in knowing about them.

You raise a good question implicitly, Michael, but I think the question has an answer. The answer is that if issues of temperament and personality were among the factors, these are issues that could affect one's future experience at Schwa. These issues, if they exist, may or may not be "dealbreakers," especially considering the quality of the food at Schwa, but if they do exist, any potential customer has a legitimate interest in knowing about them.

Are you just arguing for the heck of it or you do you really think that diners should take the chef's personality into account when choosing a restaurant?

Molly wrote:

You raise a good question implicitly, Michael, but I think the question has an answer. The answer is that if issues of temperament and personality were among the factors, these are issues that could affect one's future experience at Schwa. These issues, if they exist, may or may not be "dealbreakers," especially considering the quality of the food at Schwa, but if they do exist, any potential customer has a legitimate interest in knowing about them.

Are you just arguing for the heck of it or you do you really think that diners should take the chef's personality into account when choosing a restaurant?

And that such information somehow falls under the public's right to know?

riddlemay wrote:...if issues of temperament and personality were among the factors, these are issues that could affect one's future experience at Schwa. These issues, if they exist, may or may not be "dealbreakers"....

Let me see if I understand this properly:

If these issues exist, they could affect things in the future. But then again, they might not. Well, if Michael Carlson gets seriously ill and is unable to go to work for a few weeks (God forbid), that, too, might affect the performance of Schwa going forward. And no, that's not reducing the question to an absurdity, because it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

Why don't we worry about all of this if and when it happens? Because, after all, it might not.

There is no doubt that Michael Carlson closed Schwa precisely because of his temperament and personality. What other factors went into his decision, I don’t know. And I find it extraordinary to hear it suggested that we, the public, are entitled to a detailed examination of his temperament, personality, and any other contributing factors on the ground that it would assist us in deciding whether to make a reservation at Schwa in the future or in the kind of experience we’ll have there.

Regardless of the factors that resulted in this particular decision, it would be engaging in pure speculation, to say the least, about the possible effect, if any, of these factors on any future decision that might or might not arise. Let’s enjoy Schwa while it’s here, for however long, focusing on Michael Carlson’s extraordinary abilities in the kitchen.

[Edited once for the purpose of correcting my English (so I don't sound any more affected than I already appear).]

MJN wrote:

Toward that end, I'd welcome any chef or interview subject who felt I had missed something or didn't write something fairly to write a rebuttal and I'd be more than happy to publish it, unedited, on my website alongside the original if possible ...

This reminds me of a major league pitcher who gets booed, and then dares a fan to stand in the batters box and face his major league fastball. Or a Chicago Bulls player getting criticised by a Sun Times writer and saying "Oh yeah, I'd like to see you step out on the court and play me one one one."

eatchicago wrote:Curiosity does not equal legitimate interest.

Hear, Hear!

Gypsy Boy wrote:Let’s enjoy Schwa while it’s here, for however long, focusing on Michael Carlson’s extraordinary abilities in the kitchen.

Yes! Thank you.

Molly asked:

...do you really think that diners should take the chef's personality into account when choosing a restaurant?

Dmnkly asked:

And that such information somehow falls under the public's right to know?

Both these (rhetorical) questions express an implicit astonishment, as if my position is the height of unreasonableness.

On the contrary, my position is so reasonable (it seems to me) that I find the astonishment astonishing! To treat the two questions as non-rhetorical for a moment, though, I'll simply say that my answer to both is "yes."

So I guess we'll have to agree to be mutually astonished.

riddlemay wrote:So I guess we'll have to agree to be mutually astonished.

That the value of public interest rises to such a level that it should be considered a right of the people to know about the personal lives of chefs?

Yes, I do find that suggestion astonishing. I think it's actually the singlemost extreme invocation of the "public's right to know" I've ever heard expressed, so... um...

...agreed!

Dmnkly wrote:That the value of public interest rises to such a level that it should be considered a right of the people to know about the personal lives of chefs?

A "right"? I never said that. (I was sure I hadn't, but to make double-sure, I just went over all my posts, and yup, I never said that.) Something else I never said: "the personal lives of chefs." That was a concept more implicit in Gary's reductio ad absurdum post.

Here's what I said: that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing the personality and temperament of the chef/proprietors and/or management of the restaurants it considers frequenting.

That still seems to me inarguable, or would, if people weren't arguing about it.

Especially in a small restaurant, the temperament of key personnel is going to make a difference in the customer's experience, for better and for worse. Hopefully for better--and I'm willing to stipulate in the case of Schwa only for the better--but it's certain to make a difference one way or the other.

Does "legitimate interest" mean that articles about restaurants must include information that can lead to an evaluation of the personality and/or temperament of chefs and other key personnel? No, and I never said that. But if they do, is it appropriate? I would maintain that it is.

Here's what I said: that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing the personality and temperament of the chef/proprietors and/or management of the restaurants it considers frequenting.

Interesting. Perhaps there should be a rating system similar to stars or dollar signs. Let me be the first to suggest the following:

Chef's Temperament (choose one):

Should we ask David Richards of (GNR winner) Sweets and Savories about this? I love his food, but I hear . . .

It just struck me that we’re all dancing around the central point that riddlemay is making, albeit implicitly. I trust that riddlemay will correct me if I am wrong.

I don’t care how my chef behaves. I don’t care if he smokes; I don’t care if he does drugs. I don’t care what kind of violent video games he plays or if he is foul-mouthed toward the staff, or even if he has habits and routines that would make me blanch and turn my stomach. I really don’t. It might be interesting to learn, though actively wanting to know verges on lurid curiosity to me. It might make a great story in the paper that I would, no doubt, read with great fascination.

But none of it is going to change my mind. If that chef is Thomas Keller or Grant Achatz or Michael Carlson—and let it be abundantly clear that I am attributing absolutely nothing whatsoever to any of these gentlemen—then I want to taste that chef’s food. Why? Because I’m paying the chef to be a chef. That’s it.

We all draw lines; there is undoubtedly a point at which we all have moral objections—some people, to pick an example at random, won’t eat Domino’s pizza because of Tom Monaghan’s religious views. But until a chef crosses the line that is admittedly different for us all—and riddlemay’s line is simply in a different place than mine—I want to taste the food that the chef puts out. Because, to me, it is that whole, complex, complicated, intricate package of faults and virtues, good together with bad, that comprises the human being who is responsible for conceiving and creating the food that wows us.

I appreciate the good humor in jbw's and GAF's last posts, and the thoughtfulness in Gypsy Boy's. Here's where I come out.

It's (obviously) valid not to care about a chef's temperament, if that's simply not on your menu, as it isn't on Gypsy Boy's. So, temperament and personality of key personnel are certainly not necessary components of restaurant reporting or criticism, if a reporter deems these things unremarkable, irrelevant, or otherwise unworthy of comment.

But to say the topics of temperament and personality must never be broached in restaurant journalism, must be considered verboten, off-limits, seems, to me, a much harder position to defend. Although this is exactly the position that some others here appear to be taking.

riddlemay wrote:But to say the topics of temperament and personality must never be broached in restaurant journalism, must be considered verboten, off-limits, seems, to me, a much harder position to defend. Although this is exactly the position that some others here appear to be taking.

That was never my position, in case it wasn't clear.

Dmnkly wrote:That was never my position, in case it wasn't clear.

Then we have more agreement than it appeared when you wrote, "I think it's actually the singlemost extreme invocation of the 'public's right to know' I've ever heard expressed, so... um..." But of course that was based on a misunderstanding of my position, as I apparently have misunderstood yours.

If you are saying you don't defend the proposition that personality and temperament are off-limits, then I assume you also agree with me that the Tribune article about Schwa could have gone a little further than it did in exploring these issues without crossing the line into tabloid journalism. (By the way, this does not mean I don't believe there is a line separating legitimate from tabloid journalism, or that it would be impossible for the Tribune to cross it. Just that the paper could have gone further in this article without crossing it.)

riddlemay wrote:Especially in a small restaurant, the temperament of key personnel is going to make a difference in the customer's experience, for better and for worse. Hopefully for better--and I'm willing to stipulate in the case of Schwa only for the better--but it's certain to make a difference one way or the other.

however, wouldn't reading the several reviews of schwa give you enough insight into chef carlson's personality and temperment? there are, i think, over a hundred posts on schwa with rather descriptive info on not only food, but staff as well. more than enough to sate your curiosity of the chef's demeanor...more so than the disclosure of an alleged secret story.

We're simply discussing--or at least I am, anyway--whether the Tribune article stopped shy of where it could have gone and still stayed within the bounds of good journalism.

Frankly, I can't imagine what I or anyone else could say about the Tribune article that hasn't been said--at least I'm tapped out--but I do think it's worth making the point that reviews elsewhere aren't germane to an evaluation of the Trib article, however you come out on it.