courtesy of dcist, i thought this was kinda fascinating, and was wondering what you all thought, especially those of you who have read garlic & sapphires. leave comments!
-n
Eater.com Publishes Photo of WaPo Food Critic Tom Sietsema
The anonymity of a food critic is viewed as an essential part of writing an unbiased review. Like it or not, many times reviews make or break a spot, and restaurants will go to great lengths to ensure that if they have a critic on the premises, the food and service is flawless. That's what makes Eater.com's decision to post photos of top food critics around the country, including the Washington Post's Tom Sietsema, seem a bit of a disservice to review readers.
Eater's editors write that "Sietsema downplays his anonymity as a critic, although he does keep himself out of photos as much as possible." But that runs contrary to what Sietsema himself has said: "I have dined in all the major establishments in deep disguise over the years, but I don't put on the full gear for every visit." And also, "I still think it's important for a critic to at least make an attempt to dine anonymously."
Whether Sietsema does a good enough job staying anonymous is another story. Many in D.C.'s dining scene claim they can spot him a mile away. As one veteran restaurant manager put it, "I've been able to spot Sietsema at 20 paces for 15 years, even in disguise. Most of the people I know can recognize him. In one restaurant I worked at we had his old modeling spec card hung up in the back office so that the servers would have some idea of what he looked like. I wouldn't be surprised if other restaurants had the same thing."
In this internet age, it's harder and harder to stay completely anonymous. And this brings up a lot of questions. Did Eater serve the public good, or hinder it? Is it a nice thing to help restaurants who might be less savvy be on more equal footing? Should anonymity continue to be a condition for restaurant reviews? Or have ever-increasing numbers of online reviews, whether from blogs or sites like Yelp, diminished the need for authoritative, major media outlet critics?
and, of course, the really intriguing part - the photos:
http://eater.com/archives/2010/04/19/anonymous-restaurant-critics-field-guide.php
-n
Eater.com Publishes Photo of WaPo Food Critic Tom Sietsema
The anonymity of a food critic is viewed as an essential part of writing an unbiased review. Like it or not, many times reviews make or break a spot, and restaurants will go to great lengths to ensure that if they have a critic on the premises, the food and service is flawless. That's what makes Eater.com's decision to post photos of top food critics around the country, including the Washington Post's Tom Sietsema, seem a bit of a disservice to review readers.
Eater's editors write that "Sietsema downplays his anonymity as a critic, although he does keep himself out of photos as much as possible." But that runs contrary to what Sietsema himself has said: "I have dined in all the major establishments in deep disguise over the years, but I don't put on the full gear for every visit." And also, "I still think it's important for a critic to at least make an attempt to dine anonymously."
Whether Sietsema does a good enough job staying anonymous is another story. Many in D.C.'s dining scene claim they can spot him a mile away. As one veteran restaurant manager put it, "I've been able to spot Sietsema at 20 paces for 15 years, even in disguise. Most of the people I know can recognize him. In one restaurant I worked at we had his old modeling spec card hung up in the back office so that the servers would have some idea of what he looked like. I wouldn't be surprised if other restaurants had the same thing."
In this internet age, it's harder and harder to stay completely anonymous. And this brings up a lot of questions. Did Eater serve the public good, or hinder it? Is it a nice thing to help restaurants who might be less savvy be on more equal footing? Should anonymity continue to be a condition for restaurant reviews? Or have ever-increasing numbers of online reviews, whether from blogs or sites like Yelp, diminished the need for authoritative, major media outlet critics?
and, of course, the really intriguing part - the photos:
http://eater.com/archives/2010/04/19/anonymous-restaurant-critics-field-guide.php