Ethics of the New Food Media - A Case Study

As we participants in these new internet food media -- forums, blogs, etc. -- stumble our way through this titanic shift in the way people access restaurant and food information, new ethical dilemmas are sure to crop up from time to time. As both a poster here and a blogger elsewhere, I've always been very comfortable about what I felt was and wasn't appropriate to write. I don't feel beholden to the traditional big media standard of trying hordes of dishes over multiple visits. I don't purport to be an infallible authority. I'm a data point -- hopefully a semi-knowledgeable one, but one of many that I expect anybody who comes across my writings on the net will read. I'm perhaps slightly more careful with my blog, simply because I think it holds more perceived gravity for the casual browser (though I don't believe it should). But in both cases, I think I always make it clear that I'm merely sharing my experiences, and that I'm just one guy who frequently is stopping in for one meal at one point in time. A recent event, however, has caused me a little consternation. My suspicion is that I'm being overly cautious. And I'd rather be overly cautious than the alternative. But all the same, I felt compelled to bounce this off some people whose opinions I trust on the subject. Hence, this already overly long post.

Since moving to Baltimore, there's a crowd of Chowhounders that I've been joining on a monthly basis for dinners out. The last event, a special Mardi Gras dinner, was unusual on a number of levels. Here are the broad strokes:

It was a special dinner for a group of 30 in a small restaurant that seats maybe 40. The menu was arranged weeks ahead of time, and everything was individually plated. As it turned out, this Mardi Gras dinner was a significant departure from the restaurant's normal menu. A couple of small side items from the regular menu made an appearance, but most of the dinner was Cajun, none of which can be found on the regular menu. I had not been to the restaurant before for a more typical meal, and haven't been since. Dinner was a weirdly hit and miss affair with alternating great and lousy courses, and it was further marred by major pacing problems. The weeknight dinner took over four hours, twice there were breaks of more than 30 minutes between courses, and one of the dishes never even made it to the table.

The question is, was it inappropriate to do a writeup of this dinner? After careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that as long as I presented this dinner for exactly what it was -- a special event with unusual logistical issues and a menu that potentially had the chef out of his element (even though it was of his selection) -- there was nothing wrong with sharing my experience within that context. I tried to come up with parallel situations as a basis of comparison, but I couldn't think of any.

What do you guys think? And is this actually an interesting ethical question, or is it only interesting to me?

My .02 worth.

You should tell the story blow by blow how things went that night. Personally, since you are talking about a special meal, I might cut them a break as they were not as familiar with the menu.

One thing that you MUST make clear on your blog and any related posts is that the meal was a special event and special dishes were served that night. One of my biggest pet peeves on Chowhound is that the posters mention a restaurant and describe the menu of a special event. When I travel off to that town six months later, I have a great idea of what I am going to have for dinner. The menu arrives ... and NOTHING described was on the menu. Instead, I get very ordinary Chinese food a real disappointment.

I agree with both assessments. So long as everything relevant is disclosed, then I don't see an ethical issue. What occurred to me first, rather than the ethical issue, though was an entirely different question: why do this review at all? Although the chef selected the dishes (or most of them), they were dishes not ordinarily served there. And so the question is: why write the review?

This is not a dinner likely to be repeated by anyone, if at all. No one going to this place for an "ordinary" dinner is going to have to deal with the same issues because, presumably, the chef himself won't have to deal with the same issues. (That said, he clearly bears responsibility for his choices, his execution, pacing, and so forth, particularly since having made these choices himself. And yet, one can sympathize with the normal desire to please, to stretch oneself, and the inevitable problems that are likely to arise in such circumstances.) And so, the review ends up being a perfectly valid review of a completely unique situation.

Which leads me to my question: what purpose is served by posting it? That is not to say that there is no purpose--only that I am wondering about the purpose. I think I'm completely open-minded on the subject and could be convinced (either way); it's just the question that came to my mind.

I'll be curious to read what others have to say here--and the evolution of your thoughts as well.

I see your case study, and I raise you Cajun Charlie's. It seems that history has repeated itself.

After a truly disastrous meal that was completely botched by the restaurant, no one wanted to post in deference to nr706, who put himself on the line for Cajun Charlie's. Slowly, details started to come out and there was genuine interest from LTH at large to read about the evening, warts and all. In the end, writing reviews of that evening served to both warn people off of the restaurant as well as to amuse the readers.

Dmnkly, as a Baltimore Boy myself, I hope you're enjoying your time there. I look forward to Balto posts from you in the Beyond Chicago forum, to inform me for all my future (increasingly regular) visits there.

As for your question, I think you are right twice. First, you're right to wonder whether there's an ethical question involved. There is one, and it's to your credit that you see it. Second, I think you're right to post about the experience as long as you explain the circumstances of it, as you did.

Put it this way: There's a school of thought (which I respect) which says it's immoral ever to speak badly of anyone or anything. It goes back to the Torah, and Rabbi Hillel's injunction not to do unto others that which you would not want done unto you. If that philosophy were followed (and hey, I'm not saying it shouldn't be), half the posts on LTH would be wiped out in a second. But within another school of thought, one favoring communication of information as long as it is honest, your post would fall squarely in ethical territory, in my opinion.

I understand Gypsy Boy's question (why post about the experience at all), but I think the answer is that it provides useful consumer info for anyone else considering planning a "special dinner" at the restaurant.

There's a school of thought (which I respect) which says it's immoral ever to speak badly of anyone or anything. It goes back to the Torah, and Rabbi Hillel's injunction not to do unto others that which you would not want done unto you.

As far as subpar meals at restaurants are concerned I prefer to Hillel's "Silver Rule" above the Confucian "Brass Rule" below:

"Repay kindness with kindness, but evil with justice."

Hi,

If you start here, then follow the link in eatchicago's post to the multi-post report on this dinner.

Nr706, Gwiv and I met with the restaurant to plan this meal. They made many promises they didn't keep. Cooked in oil that needed changing. Put food in front of people, then changed their minds and took the plate elsewhere. It was a riot of errors and misjudgements from people whose business was going down the tubes. It could have been the last hurrah or a rebirth, because they had also just been featured on Hungry Hound. Unfortunately they chose our event to just merely go through the motions. There was a woman at the next table who took interest in our plans. She eventually signed up to 'tarte tatin.' She followed the event on the internet and knew much of what was promised was never delivered.

Fortunately it is one of the very few disasters we have ever had, but was it a doozy.

Regards,

Gypsy Boy wrote:This is not a dinner likely to be repeated by anyone, if at all. No one going to this place for an "ordinary" dinner is going to have to deal with the same issues because, presumably, the chef himself won't have to deal with the same issues. (That said, he clearly bears responsibility for his choices, his execution, pacing, and so forth, particularly since having made these choices himself. And yet, one can sympathize with the normal desire to please, to stretch oneself, and the inevitable problems that are likely to arise in such circumstances.) And so, the review ends up being a perfectly valid review of a completely unique situation.

What if the chef later decides to do a special St. Patrick's Day dinner? Cinco de Mayo? Bastille Day?

Some restaurants change their menus daily; the food described in a review may no longer be available when you show up. That doesn't make reviews of such places worthless.

cilantro wrote:

Gypsy Boy wrote:This is not a dinner likely to be repeated by anyone, if at all. No one going to this place for an "ordinary" dinner is going to have to deal with the same issues because, presumably, the chef himself won't have to deal with the same issues. (That said, he clearly bears responsibility for his choices, his execution, pacing, and so forth, particularly since having made these choices himself. And yet, one can sympathize with the normal desire to please, to stretch oneself, and the inevitable problems that are likely to arise in such circumstances.) And so, the review ends up being a perfectly valid review of a completely unique situation.

What if the chef later decides to do a special St. Patrick's Day dinner? Cinco de Mayo? Bastille Day?

Some restaurants change their menus daily; the food described in a review may no longer be available when you show up. That doesn't make reviews of such places worthless.

To answer this question (and then step back again... I don't want to jump in too much before people have weighed in with first thoughts), the reasons I felt it was worth posting (setting aside the ethical implications for the moment) were fourfold:

1. Actually the least important of the four, I felt that it did say something about the chef and restaurant, even if it wasn't necessarily indicative of their normal operation. To this end, it was good and bad. Despite the problems, we did have some truly great dishes, and I hope I praised those as plainly and honestly as I called out the failures.

2. Secondly, as mentioned in the first paragraph of the post, I don't really think of what I write as "reviews". Please tell me if you think that's a semantic game I subconsciously play to absolve myself of responsibility, but I don't think so. I definitely see the posts I make as data points, which is why I'm generally so careful to explain the circumstances -- so that people can value them or disregard them as they see fit.

3. I like to think that a post like this holds interest beyond the most utilitarian purpose of helping somebody decide whether or not to visit. I certainly enjoy reading others' posts about restaurants I'm unlikely to ever have a chance to try. My interest may not be quite so keen as it would be if I could immediately pick up the phone and book a reservation, but I like to think there's some entertainment value beyond the purpose that a traditional review would serve. This is, incidentally, definitely something that separates internet food media from traditional food media. Writing for a newspaper, it's reasonable to assume that almost all of your readership lives close enough to go visit the restaurant about which you write. Not so with an internet publication.

4. Most importantly, and I don't know if this is typical or unusual, but the primary audience of my blog is me. I started it as a personal food journal that friends and family could check in on, and that's still what drives most of my posting (even if that's changed slightly now that some people actually read it). This was an unusual dinner that absolutely had a place in my private journal, even if that private journal happens to be public.

cilantro wrote:That doesn't make reviews of such places worthless.

Agreed. But I didn't say the review would be worthless and don't think I said so (even implicitly). In fact, I expressly said that I was open to arguments from both perspectives. My understanding was that this was a unique event: completely different menu (with a few minor exceptions). It did not reflect the regular menu in any fashion. Indeed, as dmnkly said, the menu was Cajun, "none of which can be found on the regular menu."

My question was only about how helpful a review of food never normally served would be to others. I think riddlemay's answer--to notify those who might have something similar in mind--is a good one.

Gypsy Boy wrote:My question was only about how helpful a review of food never normally served would be to others.

It could tell me, for example, that the chef struggles when cooking outside his comfort zone. Additionally, the chef himself might have been rather pleased with the dinner and considering adding some of the dishes to the regular menu. A review could help him in that regard.

Exactly right. And the kind of thing that simply hadn't occurred to me upon first reading.

I see no ethical problems in posting about a special dinner if all the caveats are included, and the reader isn't led to expect that experience will be typical of a random visit. I think most reviews I've seen on LTH are intended to be taken as a datapoint, not as the ultimate word on a given restaurant (and those that do say things like "never visit this place" based on a single visit immediately lose credibility with me).

And I want to thank the others for bringing up the Cajun Charlie's dinner two years ago. I guess I take a perverse pride in being involved in what remains one of the most talked-about LTH events. It's an interesting case study of a formerly solid restaurant falling into severe financial problems, then committing to deliver based upon what he hoped he could do, rather than acknowledging the extent of his problems.

I think I'll try to find Charlie and get his story, now that time has passed. He was an excellent cook and a lousy businessman (also see references to Cafe Salamera). Of course, if I do, I'll post.

Dmnkly wrote:2. Secondly, as mentioned in the first paragraph of the post, I don't really think of what I write as "reviews". Please tell me if you think that's a semantic game I subconsciously play to absolve myself of responsibility, but I don't think so. I definitely see the posts I make as data points, which is why I'm generally so careful to explain the circumstances -- so that people can value them or disregard them as they see fit.

Dom,

On this point I completely agree, at least in my own mind. However, lately it has come to my attention that there are people out there who actually read what I write and, as you said, value or disregard my posts as they see fit. Call them reviews or data points, they evidently carry some weight with people whom I don't even know. In all the years of posting, it had never occurred to me that anything I wrote mattered to anyone except me and/or the person(s) I was in conversation with. Since coming to that realization, I have taken what I post much more seriously. Being careful to try for objectivity is now my watchword, but perfection will probably always elude me.

It seems to me that this is less an issue of ethics and more of fairness. The ethical thing to do in discussing this restaurant is to fully disclose the pertinent facts and present them truthfully, all of which you apparently did. Your actions in doing so are inherently reasonable and justified.

Now, I think the issue you're grappling with is whether it was fair for you to write about this restaurant knowing that (1) it was kind of a one-off dinner; and (2) they were cooking off-menu items (presumably reaching out of their comfort zone). That's a judgment call about which reasonable minds might differ. I say, trust your gut and defend your decision.

Dom,

I think you have a fine handle on it. Ultimately, I think full disclosure is the key. Purpose -- whatever it may be -- drives the writer but relevance is ultimately determined by the reader. As long as you have disclosed the facts and details about the event in a forthright manner, you've made your account potentially relevant, regardless of what your purpose was in writing it.

I like this discussion very much because I believe it holds important insights about a lot of what appears in these forums.

=R=

nr706 wrote:I think I'll try to find Charlie and get his story, now that time has passed. He was an excellent cook and a lousy businessman (also see references to Cafe Salamera). Of course, if I do, I'll post.

If I were Charlie, that statement would stop me from talking to you, and it brings up a separate ethical issue.

For those of us who like to draw out the staff and owners of restaurants when dining, at times we are told things that the speaker might not have told us if it was known that the information would be posted on the Internet. In that sense we are all journalists and need to be sensitive to information given in confidence and information that can be shared.

I like to think I am able to figure out what information might cause some problems and withhold it, but I suppose even something as simple as the ingredients in a dish might not be shared if they knew I will post it online. Ethically, the only safe approach is to not share anything unless it is generally public knowledge, but I liken that to cutting off my finger because it could be used to launch a nuclear missile. So I post information about ingredients, who does the cooking on a given night, etc. I do not post dirt about the owners, staff, competition, plans to sell, etc.

Dom, how do you approach that?

Regarding the special dinner, I agree that you should post details on the meal with clear information on the context. One could make some sort of argument in defense of the place if maybe the CH organizer pushed the place to do more than they wanted to, hypothetically, but at some point the place has to take responsibility for only committing to doing what they can do well, so it does reflect on how the place is run one way or another.

And if I was considering attending a special dinner of some sort at that place, I would consider this very useful info.

Have you done the authoritative Pit Beef survey yet?

Gypsy Boy wrote: My question was only about how helpful a review of food never normally served would be to others. I think riddlemay's answer--to notify those who might have something similar in mind--is a good one.

I dunno, GB - I read an awful lot of posts here about restaurants where, considering my tax bracket, I will never eat, and of foods I will probably never try for the same reason. I joined this forum primarily because I enjoy reading about, writing about, and discussing food. I like hearing about other people's experiences, good or bad - and although good reviews may make me choose one place over another, an isolated bad experience, caveats in place, does not. If I want to follow in an LTHer's footsteps (rather than the consensus of the group) I ask directly for specifics - e.g. I'd PM Dom for advice in the unlikely event I need to plan an event in Baltimore.

David, you bring up a point that causes me occasional apprehension. Most of us are not restaurant reviewers, but between the cameras and food jargon - and sometimes by outright announcement, we make ourselves known. I find it difficult to post after such an experience, because it's hard to say if our experience was "typical." We are often freely offered backstory that our non-virtual dining companions wouldn't hear. That being said, I think it's fair game to post honestly about a place and its story, provided that it was offered in good faith.

So, maybe it's a semantics issue: we are not reviewers, but culinary raconteurs. This leaves us the freedom to tell stories about our experience, but also to assume our readers will take into account the somewhat odd circumstances of this community.

dicksond wrote:

nr706 wrote:For those of us who like to draw out the staff and owners of restaurants when dining, at times we are told things that the speaker might not have told us if it was known that the information would be posted on the Internet. In that sense we are all journalists and need to be sensitive to information given in confidence and information that can be shared.

I agree. I also think there is a slight difference in obligation if a special restaurant meal has been worked up at the request of the person writing about it. I don't think a restaurant should ever agree to do something they don't feel up to, but if someone asked me to do something special and it didn't work out to whatever degree, I might feel justified in being miffed if they wrote negatively about it later. Like I'd been sort of suckered. I think full disclosure should help with this-- letting people know how much input the writer had in the meal.

ronnie_suburban wrote:I like this discussion very much because I believe it holds important insights about a lot of what appears in these forums.

Precisely why I opted to make this an open discussion here. Beyond addressing my own personal concerns, I thought the ensuing discussion would be very relevant to LTH.

It's good to hear that everybody pretty much seems to agree. As mentioned, it's in my nature to be overly cautious about such things, so I figured this would probably be the case, but all the same.

stevez wrote:I see your case study, and I raise you Cajun Charlie's. It seems that history has repeated itself.

After a truly disastrous meal that was completely botched by the restaurant, no one wanted to post in deference to nr706, who put himself on the line for Cajun Charlie's. Slowly, details started to come out and there was genuine interest from LTH at large to read about the evening, warts and all. In the end, writing reviews of that evening served to both warn people off of the restaurant as well as to amuse the readers.

The parallels are remarkable, indeed Though our dinner didn't quite achieve the same level of fiasco. I should probably also mention that, much like the Cajun Charlie's mishap, the chef in this instance knew exactly who he was hosting. If he had thought it was simply some random large group, I don't know that it would have changed my decision to post or not to post, but the fact that he knew he was hosting a large crowd of internet food nerds probably worked its way into the equation in my head to some degree.

riddlemay wrote:Put it this way: There's a school of thought (which I respect) which says it's immoral ever to speak badly of anyone or anything. It goes back to the Torah, and Rabbi Hillel's injunction not to do unto others that which you would not want done unto you. If that philosophy were followed (and hey, I'm not saying it shouldn't be), half the posts on LTH would be wiped out in a second. But within another school of thought, one favoring communication of information as long as it is honest, your post would fall squarely in ethical territory, in my opinion.

stevez wrote:Since coming to that realization, I have taken what I post much more seriously. Being careful to try for objectivity is now my watchword, but perfection will probably always elude me.

And this is definitely something that I struggle with at times. I don't like to speak badly of people, especially when they're earnest, passionate individuals whose failures, as I see them, aren't due to a lack of effort or love for what they do. But I do feel compelled to be as objective as I can possibly be. I feel it's absolutely critical to acknowledge that you can be a fan of a place but still call out its faults, and likewise if my dinner is mostly terrible, I feel that I still owe it to the establishment to sing the praises of whatever is done right. Anybody, even the most seasoned traditional media reviewer, can get caught up in "this place rocks" or "this place sucks" passion. I think that's human nature to some degree. But I do think it behooves us to always be aware of that tendency and to resist it. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But what I see emerging is a growing acceptance of something I (and I think everybody here) have always felt -- that opinions expressed in a forum like this or on a blog like mine must be responsibly portrayed.

Mhays wrote:So, maybe it's a semantics issue: we are not reviewers, but culinary raconteurs. This leaves us the freedom to tell stories about our experience, but also to assume our readers will take into account the somewhat odd circumstances of this community.

I think this is a great way of putting it. I know there's a movement among some food bloggers to lay down ethical review guidelines similar to traditional print media. I'm not sure I support this movement. Blogs and forums are used by people in different ways than traditional media and I think applying old standards is not only unnecessary but in many ways detrimental. But that doesn't absolve people of the basic responsibility to be honest and fair and as objective as possible within whatever context they're operating. In my case, I feel that making the context clear, as some have pointed out, is definitely one key element. Sometimes I feel like I'm firing off a litany of disclaimers, but I think it's important to let people know when my opinion is based on a small sample, or unusual circumstances, or if I'm not well-versed in that particular cuisine. I try to treat it like a scientific error analysis. Here's what I think, but in the event that they aren't obvious, here are some reasons why I might be wrong.

dicksond wrote:For those of us who like to draw out the staff and owners of restaurants when dining, at times we are told things that the speaker might not have told us if it was known that the information would be posted on the Internet. In that sense we are all journalists and need to be sensitive to information given in confidence and information that can be shared.

I like to think I am able to figure out what information might cause some problems and withhold it, but I suppose even something as simple as the ingredients in a dish might not be shared if they knew I will post it online. Ethically, the only safe approach is to not share anything unless it is generally public knowledge, but I liken that to cutting off my finger because it could be used to launch a nuclear missile. So I post information about ingredients, who does the cooking on a given night, etc. I do not post dirt about the owners, staff, competition, plans to sell, etc.

Dom, how do you approach that?

This is a really good point, and yes, it's another one that I struggle with at times. My natural instinct is to be extremely cautious. If somebody is aware that I'm a food blogger, I usually work under the assumption that anything they tell me is fair game, unless my gut tells me that's something they'd rather not be known, in which case I'll ask. But in most cases, no, I don't think they know -- or at least they can't be sure -- and though there are times I'm told things that I'd love to write about, if there's any question in my mind that they wouldn't want it floating about, or if it isn't something that any typical diner couldn't easily glean, I don't write it. It's a judgement call, absolutely. But again, I think it's one of those places where it's okay to exercise judgement so long as you aren't cavalier about it.

Mhays wrote:David, you bring up a point that causes me occasional apprehension. Most of us are not restaurant reviewers, but between the cameras and food jargon - and sometimes by outright announcement, we make ourselves known. I find it difficult to post after such an experience, because it's hard to say if our experience was "typical." We are often freely offered backstory that our non-virtual dining companions wouldn't hear.

I'm not so sure it's that obvious. When I ate at Da Ping Huo in Hong Kong this past summer, there was a little moment that was shocking to me. It's a tiny place that seats 20-25, and they do two seatings and serve everybody the same courses simultaneously. The first course, I was the only one taking photos of the food. By the second or third course, a couple that was sharing our table (who I think had noted that I was taking pictures) pulled out their cell phone and started snapping their own. This continued to grow until, by the time dessert rolled out, I counted no fewer than five people taking pictures of their food. I can't believe they were all people who regularly post photos about food, or else I presume they'd have been snapping from the first plate and wouldn't be using cell phones. But it said to me that perhaps this practice of taking photos in restaurants has grown far beyond those who intend to post them with writeups online. Point being, it may not be obvious anymore.

dicksond wrote:

nr706 wrote:I think I'll try to find Charlie and get his story, now that time has passed. He was an excellent cook and a lousy businessman (also see references to Cafe Salamera). Of course, if I do, I'll post.

If I were Charlie, that statement would stop me from talking to you, and it brings up a separate ethical issue.

As a former journalist, obviously I would make it clear upfront that the conversation may be posted or published somewhere. I assumed that was understood. He's a nice guy, I wouldn't want to undermine him. If anything, I'd like to see a smart investor/manager get him back into a commercial kitchen.

Yeah, Tom, I did not mean that in any way as a swipe at you, but rather used it as an opportunity to bring up my concern.