Pat Bruno axed by Sun-Times. . .

. . . and Robert Feder reports that he's none too happy about how it was done.

Interesting that Michael Sneed still has a gig at the Bright One. As a commenter noted, she must know where an awful lot of bodies are buried!

Who reads restaurant reviews in the paper anymore? Who even reads a hard copy of the paper anymore?

I don't understand why Pat Bruno feels like the Sun-Times owes him one, IMO they already did him a favor by keeping him on for 6-7 years after his job became obsolete.

P. Channon wrote: Who even reads a hard copy of the paper anymore?

I do, one of my favorite parts of the day is sitting down with the Sun Times Mon-Fri while I eat lunch.

Personally I was never a fan of Mr. Bruno, but I hate to see anyone fired.

P. Channon wrote:Who reads restaurant reviews in the paper anymore? Who even reads a hard copy of the paper anymore?

I don't understand why Pat Bruno feels like the Sun-Times owes him one, IMO they already did him a favor by keeping him on for 6-7 years after his job became obsolete.

Amazingly, these reviews were also on the Sun Times website.

I read Bruno's reviews sometimes. I also read review in the Trib. I read LTH, some blogs, and also Twitter. If the information is good, then the medium doesn't really matter to me.

The article attached in the OP references Bruno's (former) "weekly two-page spread" in the Sun-Times. So it's fair game, I think, to wonder aloud about the dwindling readership of the hard copy of the paper. Given Bruno's avowal that he's now starting a blog, it does appear that his adherence to old-school methods of reaching his audience may have led to his demise. I feel bad for anyone who loses their job, but I can't help be a little befuddled that he is just now starting a blog -- a medium at which he probably turned up his nose only two months earlier -- when blogging, twittering, etc., along with his crusty old paper column, may have put him in touch with a greater audience as well as saved his freelancing work with the Sun-Times. Best of luck to him, though.

jimswside wrote:

P. Channon wrote: Who even reads a hard copy of the paper anymore?

I do, one of my favorite parts of the day is sitting down with the Sun Times Mon-Fri while I eat lunch.

Personally I was never a fan of Mr. Bruno, but I hate to see anyone fired.

Add me to the list of hard copy readers -- I read the ST on the train and at lunch and always enjoyed Pat's reviews on Fridays. I read online news sites as well, but there's a lot to be said for the "hard copy" experience given the way online news sites only show you the latest and most sensational stories and draw you in with misleading headlines that are simply there to draw web traffic and boost ad revenues. For something like a food review, the "hard copy" layout is a very efficient way of seeing pictures, a full review, a "sidebar", and an overview all on the same page without the need to scroll or click around. (Granted, I am an old man born in 1976.)

I'm not being naive -- I realize the format is losing traction and there's nothing I can do to change that. But as long as they still sell "paper" papers I will be reading them.

Professional courtesies:

http://news.yahoo.com/fired-chicago-foo ... hon=602,il

Bruno's firing is connected to the NYT's Sam Sifton being promoted from restaurant critic to national desk editor in The Atlantic Wire.

[T]he role of food critic has morphed from the kind of job one holds for decades, with increasing local power and seniority, to the kind of job one holds for a few years, before going off and doing something else. For those who have dreams of moonlighting as a critic, it's great news. For those who thought they could turn their palate into a 401(k), it's a tough slog.

P. Channon wrote: I don't understand why Pat Bruno feels like the Sun-Times owes him one.

I followed Bruno for all of his 27 years at the paper. While I don't think he was outstanding at what he did, it was apparent that he put a good amount of effort into his work.

Twenty-seven years of service merits more than being fired by phone by a midlevel editor.

TomInSkokie wrote:

P. Channon wrote:Twenty-seven years of service merits more than being fired by phone by a midlevel editor.

Sad that it doesn't anymore.

I was a long time subscriber to the ST. As the Trib eviscerated the ST Sports Section, news pages shrunk, good writers disappeared-- I was getting a paper duller than a church bulletin--save for the crossword AND Pat Bruno on Friday. The subscription expired on Sunday. Pat was broomed and the crossword alone just won't carry the load. I will not renew.

Replaced by ... Michael Nagrant.

http://chicago.eater.com/archives/2011/ ... -which.php
http://chicago.grubstreet.com/2011/10/its_nagrant.html

Good on ye, Mike. This will be a ride, to be sure.

- Professor P

Congratulations to Mike. It is a necessary generational transition as well as expanding the types of restaurants covered. But will we be able to SEE Mike again. There are a lot of photos on this website.

Let the trashing begin - of restaurants and of the critic!

GAF wrote:But will we be able to SEE Mike again. There are a lot of photos on this website.

I assumed, probably incorrectly, that you meant the Sun-Times website, Gary. In any case, I went there, and they seem to be trying to create a certain amount of anonymity for him. There is a very shallow depth-of-field photo of a knife and fork behind which his unfocused face can be seen, and it appears to me they've used Photoshop to further defocus his face even more than the shallow depth-of-field is doing. (In fact, the image could be a composite of two separate shots--hands holding a knife and fork, and a highly defocused head shot.)

riddlemay wrote:

GAF wrote:But will we be able to SEE Mike again. There are a lot of photos on this website.

I assumed, probably incorrectly, that you meant the Sun-Times website, Gary. In any case, I went there, and they seem to be trying to create a certain amount of anonymity for him. There is a very shallow depth-of-field photo of a knife and fork behind which his unfocused face can be seen, and it appears to me they've used Photoshop to further defocus his face even more than the shallow depth-of-field is doing. (In fact, the image could be a composite of two separate shots--hands holding a knife and fork, and a highly defocused head shot.)

I don't think there are any pictures of Mr. Nagrant posted here at LTH. He's fairly well-known around town, though, having interviewed many local chefs. I don't think he'll be very anonymous but I'm not sure that matters, either.

=R=

To the best of my recollection the only one is here:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=13611&p=131780

and it was chosen by me specifically at his request that we not show his face. (Gary took it.)

As noted, he's not anonymous to anyone he's interviewed in the past, but seriously, having been in a lot of kitchens in the last year, there's no critic in Chicago whose image is not out there or is not otherwise recognized regularly; I recently had a well-known restaurateur recount for me exactly the dishes that would be in another critic's review a few days later, and was told a story about one recent rave review recipient tailoring their menu shortly before a critic's arrival to offer ingredients s/he was known to be especially fond of.

The more important issue is, are you aware enough to judge the experience people are having around you as well as your own? I feel some critics are not, but Nagrant is.

The more important issue is, are you aware enough to judge the experience people are having around you as well as your own? I feel some critics are not, but Nagrant is.

I believe that Nagrant is more capable than most (I personally think that anonymity is imaginary and overrated) but it's hard to meaningfully assess another diner's meal without actually tasting it. Yes, you can gauge their physical response to it, you can observe (to a degree) how the food is cooked and plated, and you can even ask the other diners about it. And all this only applies to the tables that are visible from the critics' vantage point. But in the end, what one observes of others' experiences in restaurants -- even by a skilled critic -- is only worth so much.

For me, the more important issue is can a reviewer meaningfully and honestly assess food cooked by someone with whom the reviewer has a pre-existing personal or professional relationship? Will Mr. Nagrant end up reviewing restaurants helmed by folks he knows or has worked with in the past? If so, I'm guessing that these situations will be the biggest challenge for him, as they would be for any of us. I believe he'll be as deft in this area as one can be but it still it seems to be the most difficult aspect of being a credible critic, especially since our own biases are not always so easy to discern or own up to.

=R=

I agree, I think it's a matter of judging service and some niceties of portion size, etc. Also the vibe, I suppose— if you're having a great meal but everyone around you is morose, that should tell you something.

You can't taste what other people are having but food quality is the thing least affected by anonymity or lack of it, I think— a mediocre place can serve you a bigger steak, they can maybe screw up less, but they can't become Alinea because they saw you walk in.

As far as the interviews go, they were a long time ago and Nagrant has no problem butting heads with people he knows, so....

@ Ronnie. Go enjoy your trip. LTH will be here when you get back.

ronnie_suburban wrote:it's hard to meaningfully assess another diner's meal without actually tasting it.

I agree. I don't know about others, but I go out to enjoy the company as well as the food. If the food is bad, I rarely comment on it over dinner, so as not to diminish the fun; I'll only mention it afterwards. So it could be hard to tell my opinion if you're dining at an adjacent table. Of course, there are exceptions - like when a dining companion vociferously objects to a busboy trying to remove her plate while she is still eating from it - but that's not typical.

Here's another twist in the Pat Bruno Sun-Times saga, courtesy of both Robert Feder and the Washington Post: "Food critic reviews his ordeal with brain cancer"

sundevilpeg wrote:Here's another twist in the Pat Bruno Sun-Times saga, courtesy of both Robert Feder and the Washington Post: "Food critic reviews his ordeal with brain cancer"

The most surprising detail is the source of his cancer: "... he recounts his ordeal with glioblastoma multiforme, a form of cancer that he said may have been related to “eating something that is virus related.”"

Regards,