"Check, Please!" in this week's Reader

Anne Ford has a long behind-the-scenes on Check, Please! in the Restaurants section. She inadvertently confirms something I've noticed -- the show's got shills. The first column of the article, about halfway down, talks about the producer being in the Raw Bar and meeting "somebody" (that's all the info producer Manilow gives) who introduces him to a belly dancer. The belly dancer gets on the show and talks up the Raw Bar, noting during the discussion that she also works there. (The site's unironic description of her reaction to the restaurant: "Sonya recommends it and says that she loves the baba ganoush and belly dancing.")

(And while the show always says that the reviewers are anonymous, Manilow obviously isn't, if "somebody" at the restaurant is getting their employees on the show just by walking up to him and introducing them.)

That show appeared a couple of weeks ago, but the most recent episode (which is on again tonight at 10) has Alan Padratzik talking about how he's been friends with Michelle Fire since the late '80s.

It's happened a couple other times this season too -- it's a shame that these people are getting through. I'm sure they aren't all literally shills as Sonya the belly dancer was, and some of them feel they're sincerely helping out friends, but it casts a shadow.

I'm disappointed to hear this. However, it helps that the other reviewers are there to temper skewed comments - checks and balances if you will.

Whether it is participants who have a self-interest in their review, or someone wouldn't know decent chow if it hit them in the face, I think the show has to be taken with a fun grain of salt.

Oh, I don't argue that. Every opinion out there, really, deserves a grain of salt. My point's that, with 15,000 applicants according to the article, and fewer than 40 guests in a 13-show season, they shouldn't have shills on the show. An honest mistake is one thing, although they should certainly start asking people if they have any connection to the owners or employees of an establishment. But they probably won't if they're being solicited as openly, and welcomed as enthusiastically, as Raw Bar's belly dancer.

And let's not ignore the previously-discussed "Check Please effect," which I experienced a week or two ago at Think. They added a room, the hostess (Ryvka?) recognized us but had virtually no time to chat, the food had definitely gone downhill, but the place was packed. Worst was the open kitchen in the back room, where you could watch a chef(?) making desserts and garnishing them with spritzes of supermarket-packaged Hershey's syrup. (Not arguing with the taste, but if you're going to have an open kitchen, at least put the stuff in a different bottle to maintain the illusion that it's something special you put together.)

We've decided not to go back until the effect wears off.

Bob S.,

Yes, I was a bit surprised when watching "Check, Please" tonight that they would have someone on who so openly admitted to being a friend of the owner. No way he's going to pan her place. His loyalties became even more painfully obvious when the other two guests gave their reviews of Tweet.

I definitely agree that the show is just something for fun and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I definitely agree that the show is just something for fun and should be taken with a grain of salt

I had friends from another segment of life call this week proposing to go to Holy Frijoles (or whatever its called). In an effort to play up to my interests, they predicted I'd love it since it was just on Check Please. I told them there have 2-3 hour waits since the Check Please broadcast, which I thought might dampen their interest. Instead, they simply put off the inevitable until after Easter.

Where we may take it with a grain of salt, there are plenty others who look to Check Please for sound advice.

Cathy2 wrote:Where we may take it with a grain of salt, there are plenty others who look to Check Please for sound advice.

C2,

One could do worse than Check Please! don't you think? As I watch that show, I sometimes feel disdain growing, but then I recall that pride is the foundation sin, and I repent.

That said, Holy Frijoles (or whatever it's called) sounds dismal.

Hammond

Cathy,

I was at Wholly Frijoles for lunch yesterday. I arrived there at 11:45 with a party of two and we had no wait. It's a nice strip mall Mexican with a number of interesting dishes at modest prices. The Tribune had a good writeup in Cheap Eats several years ago. You can access this via Metromix or the Tribune. I think the 2-3 hour waits are highly exaggerated. I also don't know if they accept reservations. They are definitely BYOB. It is worth a visit.

Jesper

You went at lunchtime.I assume the longer wait time,even if not THAT long is for dinner.

Hi,

The three hour wait wasn't just made up:

Bob S from January 30th wrote:Went there with some friends last night (after being told at Wholly Frijoles, at 5:30, to expect a 3-hour wait for a table).

I will be going to Wholly Frijoles with these friends sometime after Easter on a Friday evening. Hopefully our visit will not coincide with a rerun of the Check Please episode.

Bob - I agree there is no excuse for that program to select a friend or shill, especially when they have such a large pool to choose from.

David Hammond wrote:One could do worse than Check Please! don't you think? As I watch that show, I sometimes feel disdain growing, but then I recall that pride is the foundation sin, and I repent.

That said, Holy Frijoles (or whatever it's called) sounds dismal.

Hammond

Yes, the sin of pride. What I try to not bother me is this. The article makes clear how specifically Check Please does seek expertise. "We do not want foodies" the producer boasts. Yet, this is the program that seems to so influence eating in the city (as much as eaters can be influenced). Within our community, we influence each other. We SHOULD have more influence than Check Please.

Now, I am not an expert in Mexican food like Rick Bayless is an expert, but I study the cuisine a lot, and I eat at a lot of Mexican places. When I race back and declare La Quebrada "the best", I think, well I think it is. But are people lining up to go there? And do not tell me about location, 'cause Wholly Friojoles is not located in the middle of some yuppie-hood.

Or take Hema's. Long time Chowhound/LTH poster Zim IS an expert on Indian food, having grown up eating home-cooked Indian food, and having made several trips to India. When he talks about Indian food, I tend to listen. Yet, if people listened to him, it would not be Hema's that would be crammed.

As my kidz always proclaim: it's not fair!

Rob

My feelings about "Check, Please!" have shifted this season. I used to be a fan of the show, never taking it too seriously. What I've noticed recently is a distinct shift away from talking about food. CP seems more and more like a nightlife show to me, where the guests talk about the decor, service, and overall mood of the room more than the food. When they have the chance to focus on live music, belly dancing, or art work, they seize on it. Ms. EC has had to subdue me many times from yelling at Alpana, "What about the FOOD!"

I believe this exacerbates the "Check Please Effect" because it attracts people who are seeking "experience" rather than food. For many, dining out on Devon is like a trip to a theme park, it is not about what they ate, but rather the fact that they ate Indian food. I equate this to, "I went to Great America and I rode the Eagle!"

Check Please works because it sells accessibility to new experiences. It opens the door to a few restaurants every week and invites in thousands of people. We're doing the same thing here on LTHForum, but without the shining moving pictures.

I don't think Check, Please is bad or wrong for doing what they're doing. On the contrary, I think it's a wonderful thing for Chicago to promote it's restaurant industry to itself. Last month, I sent a co-worker to Bruna's when he asked for my favorite Italian and Lao Sze Chuan when he asked for my favorite Chinese. Afterwards, he said to me, "I've lived here six years and you sent me to two neighborhoods I've never been to in one month!" This pleased and saddened me at the same time. More people should get up and go out and explore, and I think Check Please helps the cause more than it hurts.

Nevertheless, it could be better. Imagine "LTHForum, the Show!" where our moderators construct a weekly panel discussion about food, each week on location at a different restaurant. It would be the most popular show on cable-access!

Best,
Michael / EC

From almost exactly a year ago, a CH thread on Wholly Frijoles -- some regulars here liked it quite a bit, some didn't:

http://www.chowhound.com/midwest/boards ... 40974.html

In our friendly confines there are comments in

http://lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t= ... y+frijoles

http://lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t= ... y+frijoles

http://lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t= ... y+frijoles (indirectly)

We were indeed warned of a three-hour wait, but thought it might be just a tactic to scare us away. Still, they didn't hesitate to tell us three hours, and the crowd outside was substantial.

As for Hema's, I understand there may be regional preferences. Close, longtime friends who live above me say that their in-laws from the Indian subcontinent have preferred Hema's for some years. Said in-laws now live outside Madison and time their visits to the city so that they can go to Hema's early in the week.

As for Check, Please!, I think it's been a good show, but clearly it's losing credibility. Rob, perhaps you can put on a belly dancer's outfit and shimmy in front of Manilow for a few minutes to get La Quebrada on.

Vital Information wrote: We SHOULD have more influence than Check Please.

Rob,

I think we have to be realistic as to our expectations, the Tribune and now, to a certain extent, Check Please, are the 1000-lb and 500-lb, respectively, gorillas and LTHForum is, comparatively,


Ok, not really, but I love an excuse to trot out the monkey.

For example, I have, for years, praised Davis Street Fishmarket for it's excellent selection of pristine oysters at a reasonable price. Not only Davis Street Oysters, but tater tots, a combination made in heaven. In today's Tribune Friday Dining Judy Hevrdejs oyster article features 6 places, none of which are Davis Street Fishmarket.

Do I have an expectation Judy H, minion, or should I say, since we are talking oysters, mignonette, of the 1000-lb, gorilla knows my opinion, nope, no I don't. Does this bother me, nope, though I would like to see Davis Street get more recognition.

Davis Street Fishmarket Here and Here

Specifically in reference to Anne Ford's very interesting Chicago Reader Check, Please article, kudos to EatChicago.net for multiple mentions. LTHforum.com was mentioned as well.

Far as getting up in arms about Check Please not being 100% what it seems on the surface. ~shrug~ I have little or no expectation what I see on television is going to be exactly as it appears. Aside, of course, from Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

I do, however, enjoy watching Check Please, but occasionally yell at the participants, think back to last weeks Double-Yum woman, and make sure nothing that will break the TV is within range to throw.

My opinion of Wholly Frijoles

Enjoy,
Gary

Michael,

You're very right about CP in that it does expose you to what's out there. I first heard about Katsu on the show years ago. Definitely one of the strong points of the show is that the cameras bring you inside a place thereby allowing you to get an idea of the atmosphere and the type of crowd that you might find there. For example, on the show that aired last night, Alan Padratzik maintained that you could bring even small kids to Tweet. Although I have never been to Tweet judging by what I saw as the camera panned the room, I would tend to disagree with him as did the woman who had brought her three year old.

I like to think that those of us who follow LTHForum are a bit different than those who watch "Check, Please" in that we are, generally speaking, a more educated and experienced consumer. You've illustrated that with your comment regarding dining on Devon Ave.

Kim

G Wiv wrote:

Vital Information wrote: We SHOULD have more influence than Check Please.

Rob,

I think we have to be realistic as to our expectations, the Tribune and now, to a certain extent, Check Please, are the 1000-lb and 500-lb, respectively, gorillas and LTHForum is, comparatively,


Ok, not really, but I love an excuse to trot out the monkey.


Enjoy,
Gary

Well, I am glad to offer you up the chance to trot out your monkey...

My point is not who IS the big chimp in town, it's who SHOULD be the big chimp in town.

I, of course, am realistic. But if Justice really reigned, than there'd be a run on Big Baby's like no one's business.

Rob

What have ye done to my Gennarino!

A

I watch Check Please for the same reason most folks probably do -- to see the interactions between the characters that the producers try to match up. It seems clear to me that the producers are looking to juxtapose guests that approach certain ideal types.

The sexy pierced and tattooed girl; the prissy interior designer; the garbage man; etc.

[My absolute favorite episode involves the couple that seems ready to kill eachother. Next to that episode, things like The Larry Sanders Show, Curb Your Enthusiasm and American Beauty look amateurish in their portrayal of uncomfortable situations.]

The "downscale" joints (usually from the garbage man character, almost never from the hipsters who tend toward Earwax and Leo's) are often pretty nice calls and remind me that places like D'Amato's and the cabbie parlors don't need our help, we need theirs.

The criticism is not often that great but the camera doesn't lie. I'm happy to put an image with a name, and a lot of the stuff they show looks pretty good, no matter what the prissy designer says.

Kwe730 wrote:...I was a bit surprised when watching "Check, Please" tonight that they would have someone on who so openly admitted to being a friend of the owner. No way he's going to pan her place. His loyalties became even more painfully obvious when the other two guests gave their reviews of Tweet.

In the most respectful and collegial way, I have to disagree with much of the animus directed at "Check Please" in this thread. First, it's not about professional reviewing, so much of the rigorous conflict-of-interest and anonymity issues go out the window with the concept itself.

They try to walk a fine line between not offering a food profesisonal's viewpoint, yet selecting guests who can be articulate about food and keep the conversation going. Mostly, I think they do pretty well.

In quoting the comment above, I don't understand the gripe. The whole point is that guests come on to discuss their favorite place. Why would or should the person who offered up Tweet as their choice be expected to "pan" it. They're supposed to love it, and the others are supposed to offer commentary on that.

Given that the show does send cameras inside the restaurant, of course there's no anonymity, but the owners still take a risk because at least 2 out of 3 guests might end up talking about how much they disliked the place, while all that b-roll running.

I also have to disagree with the specific comment later in the thread about Tweet and children: we live near there and have been bringing our toddler since they opened. They not only had high chairs, but a whole kid activity box to keep him happy and quiet during the meal. They were obviously thinking about families right from the start. (We tend to go for weekend breakfast. I don't know that I'd bring my 3 year old for dinner at 8:00 on Friday night, but I don't think I'd bring him anywhere at prime grown-up dining time.)

As long as no one is taking money from a restaurant and all these relationships are disclosed, I really don't see shilling as an issue. I enjoy the show, and I feel I can "read" the various participants well enough to decide for myself if their idea of a wonderful place overlaps at all with mine.

BTW, the best thing about Check Please might be the recipe list on the web site. Check out the Bahena recipe for "Manchanteles," from Ixcapuzalco. Other recipes look solid, like the osso buco from Francesco's. No oregano or basil, but lots of parsley.

Cathy2 wrote:Hi,

The three hour wait wasn't just made up:

Bob S from January 30th wrote:Went there with some friends last night (after being told at Wholly Frijoles, at 5:30, to expect a 3-hour wait for a table).

I will be going to Wholly Frijoles with these friends sometime after Easter on a Friday evening. Hopefully our visit will not coincide with a rerun of the Check Please episode.

Bob - I agree there is no excuse for that program to select a friend or shill, especially when they have such a large pool to choose from.

Cathy,

Wholly Frijoles didn't need the Check Please effect to have long wait times. It already had them...especially on weekends. We always call ahead for a teble and they usually hold one for us, but we've been going tere a long time, so they know us. One hint I have is to NEVER go on a weekend. The wait will always be longer than it's worth. During the week, it's not as bad, but you will still wait. I haven't been since the CP appearance. I can only imagine it's worse than ever.

mrbarolo,

While I understand what you're saying and agree with you that the person who is presenting the restaurant of their choice is not going to pan it (that'll teach me to post late at night), I was responding to the point that was made earlier. I personally would prefer that when a guest on CP selects a restaurant that he/she has no connection to it such as being a longtime friend of the owner or an employee as in the case of the person that Bob S. mentioned. It has always been my belief that the concept of the show is "here's a place I like to go, let me tell you about it because you might want to go there too" and the opinion carries no bias. I like the aspect of cameras in the place because as they say, the camera doesn't lie.

As far as kids in Tweet, I wasn't disputing as to whether or not children are welcome. As I said, I have never been there and can only judge by what I saw on the show. Based on when the cameras were filming in Tweet, it just looked like the type of place where I would want to have a quiet dinner with my husband or some friends.

I guess in the abstract I would agree that I would rather have have minimal personal connection between the restaurant and the Check Please guest. That said, even if the owner isn't your oldest friend, there's still a likelihood that you've been going to your favorite neighborhood spot for some time and by now, you're pretty well acquainted with the staff and owners anyway. At least, that's been my personal experience. In the end, unless you're there to say that 4-star place X is your favorite splurge twice every year, then you're going to encounter gray areas pretty quickly. In the end, it just doesn't bother me, precisely because there are going to be 2 independent opinions for debate right there in real time, to give us some perspective.

And often, it seems to work that way on the show. Many of the restaurants that are introduced as neighborhood or family favorites for generations are gently shot down by the other guests as not that special unless you have a sentimental attachment. That seems to be a fairly predictable arc for these discussions.

I would disagree almost completely with your confidence that "cameras don't lie." I think they lie like crazy both through intentional manipulation, and passively because of how the technology works, and purely because of how we perceive photographs when we look at them - you see a single sliver of perspective in a single moment, and that becomes a more generalized impression of the whole place which is unlikely to be true.

Leaving out the political angle of re-touching and darkroom magic to enhance or altogether alter the original image to fit someone's propagandistic intent, it is also true that food is notoriously difficult to photograph. Ask any food photographer or food photo stylist. Great food can look ghastly unless treated, artificially, to make it look as good on film as it actually looks on the plate. I always feel bad for small restaurants that mistakenly print photos on their menus which almost always look terrible regardless of how good the food really is.

At the same time, the video of a bustling restaurant and heaping, glistening platters of food whizzing by create an impression of a great place, but in fact that beautiful looking steak may be incredibly tough, or way overdone inside - something the camera can't tell us and can easily lead us astray about. The colorful cocktails may be horribly mixed or watered down. The roaches all hiding in the shadows. This is not so much the camera "lying" as it is giving a false impression by omission, but I think it's to the point.

Of course cameras lie.Can you say "supermodel"?Split screens using an actor to play his/her twin.And I had heard that food stylists use glue instead of milk in food commercials.

hattyn wrote:Of course cameras lie.Can you say "supermodel"?Split screens using an actor to play his/her twin.And I had heard that food stylists use glue instead of milk in food commercials.

I've done a fair amount of work in television food commercials, and, yes, there are some who "cheat" (mashed potatoes instead of ice cream, for example). The most reputable companies/agencies use better food stylists, with the actual food. Of course, a bad art director can make the best food look bad, and a less scrupulous guy behind the camera can make the fake stuff look great.

mrbarolo wrote:

Kwe730 wrote:...I was a bit surprised when watching "Check, Please" tonight that they would have someone on who so openly admitted to being a friend of the owner. No way he's going to pan her place. His loyalties became even more painfully obvious when the other two guests gave their reviews of Tweet.

In quoting the comment above, I don't understand the gripe. The whole point is that guests come on to discuss their favorite place. Why would or should the person who offered up Tweet as their choice be expected to "pan" it. They're supposed to love it, and the others are supposed to offer commentary on that.

Mr. Barolo,

I agree with what you said. In fact, I wouldn't feel offended if the restaurant owner him/herself went on the show. I think it's great when Check, Please reviewers are relentless in their support of their choices. The design of the show puts in place a system (of sorts) of checks and balances. The other two guests are providing the counter-point discussion which in theory, should be unbiased. Although often times I think you can detect a bias when there are personality clashes between guests. For example, I think GWiv mentioned the wonderfully horrifying Double Yum Lady. Wasn't she the one who had a gross "In your face!" reaction when Chop House Guy respectfully said he liked her restaurant choice after she had just ripped him a new one? I found myself looking past the fact that the guy chose, of all places, the Chop House, and ended up completely sympathizing with him. Watching people defend and critique is what I like about Check, Please.

mrbarolo wrote:I would disagree almost completely with your confidence that "cameras don't lie." I think they lie like crazy both through intentional manipulation, and passively because of how the technology works, and purely because of how we perceive photographs when we look at them - you see a single sliver of perspective in a single moment, and that becomes a more generalized impression of the whole place which is unlikely to be true.

Having worked on several WTTW produced shows, I can tell you that they do not have the budget or the technology to do very much manipulation of any images. Having said that, I agree that what you see on CP is somewhat artificial because even though cameras are not present when the reviewers go to eat, the establishment is notified well in advance when the cameras finally do come out for the shoot. That gives the propriator time to spruce the place up, make sure the chefs are on their game, order fresh ingredients and pack the house with friends and family guaranteed to be having a good time when the cameras roll.

trixie-pea wrote:

mrbarolo wrote:

Kwe730 wrote:...I was a bit surprised when watching "Check, Please" tonight that they would have someone on who so openly admitted to being a friend of the owner. No way he's going to pan her place. His loyalties became even more painfully obvious when the other two guests gave their reviews of Tweet.

In quoting the comment above, I don't understand the gripe. The whole point is that guests come on to discuss their favorite place. Why would or should the person who offered up Tweet as their choice be expected to "pan" it. They're supposed to love it, and the others are supposed to offer commentary on that.

Mr. Barolo,

I agree with what you said. In fact, I wouldn't feel offended if the restaurant owner him/herself went on the show. I think it's great when Check, Please reviewers are relentless in their support of their choices. The design of the show puts in place a system (of sorts) of checks and balances. The other two guests are providing the counter-point discussion which in theory, should be unbiased. Although often times I think you can detect a bias when there are personality clashes between guests. For example, I think GWiv mentioned the wonderfully horrifying Double Yum Lady. Wasn't she the one who had a gross "In your face!" reaction when Chop House Guy respectfully said he liked her restaurant choice after she had just ripped him a new one? I found myself looking past the fact that the guy chose, of all places, the Chop House, and ended up completely sympathizing with him. Watching people defend and critique is what I like about Check, Please.

But the problem generally is, there is a reduction to the means. There is the general desire to want people to like you. So, the guests tend to not want to enage or otherwise disagree with each other. The tendancy amongst the participants to try and be friendly with each other, even when you can tell they did not agree on the food. On the other hand, every once in a while, you see someone basically change their opinion because of what another guest said. Like, you do not like my place, well I HATE yours...

What they should do, is get the guests to give their comments on the places first and then interact. It would lead to more honest discussion.

Rob

Vital Information wrote:What they should do, is get the guests to give their comments on the places first and then interact. It would lead to more honest discussion.

Rob

If you're talking give them on the show first, and then interact, I generally agree. That being said, the guests *do* write down their comments before taping. Alpana can then use those notes to lead the guest in conversation...

I read the article today at Hot Doug's (try the buffalo sausage with buffalo wing sauce and blue cheese), and was pleased to see a mention of both the "Check Please" effect and LTHForum (and eatchicago.net). I thought it was a pretty balanced review of the show, and the producer did a good job defending his methods.

-ed

My "camera doesn't lie" comment was more of an evidentiary observation than an absolute proclamation about the media's technical limitations.

The Check Please vernacular of "yummy," "to die for" and "off the hook" simply doesn't convey as much meaningful information to me as does, say, a clip of Katsu's knifework on a piece of fish, or a photo of something that is supposed to be a dish that historically follows a certain form, say cassoulet or osso buco, but clearly is prepared differently (and probably worse) by a given chef.

That's why the dialogue here that includes photo illustration is so compelling. Take Erik's [Avec] pictures from yesterday. I can see that the Nicoise/Provencal dishes they are making there *look* like the things I have eaten in Nizza, unlike most of the things I have seen in the US that were called by the same name as something I had in the Riviera. For breads especially, whether socca, foccacia, or sfincione, I'm not sure that a verbal description would do much for me.

Plus, at some level, the image bears the subject's likeness. I've never had the pleasure of being in the same room as 20-something Sofia Scicolone, but I believe that I know she was rather attractive, based on things I've seen, second hand.

PS: Rob, it's so true that most of the guests who hate a place stop short of the truth. Look at the Tango Sur review: an apparent meat-o-phobe reviewer's contribution was to observe that she liked the servers' gaucho pants (bombachos, BTW) a lot.