Nelson Starr: Buffalo Chow (Part One)

By: Nelson Starr

On April 21, 2010, Jeremy and Christina Horwitz made a final, final blog post. They had hinted that they might be packing it in on a previous post but this time they weren't fooling. Yes, it was over.   

If you are in love with food as much as I am, you undoubtedly stumbled upon their excellent site, www.buffalochow.com, and then re-visited many times. But if you missed it, that's okay, as they'll keep the site--and their gazillion old reviews--up and running. That's the good news. 

Unfortunately, the bad news is for Buffalo's gastronomes because, besides missing out on brand new, thoroughly thorough BuffaloChow reviews, WNYers will be missing out on something else: food reviews that conform to The Association of Food Journalists Food Critics' Guidelines. What's this you say? You didn't know food journalists had ethics? Well, according to this foodie couple, they do and should. For them and their fellow food journalists, there is actually an ethical, shall we say, "formula" for conducting reviews correctly...and an equally definite way to do them wrong. I'm not so sure about this claim although I'm fairly sure that giving four stars in exchange for four ad buys in your magazine might be a bit of a conflict of interest. 

In their final post, Jeremy and Christina begged readers to be more adventurous, and, among other things, took a parting shot at the sad state of food criticism in WNY. It was pretty deserved in my opinion and, not surprisingly, did turn some heads. Bravely, Jeremy and Christina also took it a step further. They named names. Here's an example:

"Restaurant criticism has been broken in Western New York for as long as we can remember, and we're going to specifically call out the issue: Janice Okun at the Buffalo News is a bad role model of legendary proportions, and rather than directly challenging her reviews, other publications have sadly followed her poor examples. In recent months alone, Okun said that a "three-star" Mexican restaurant's top dish was a condiment, specifically salsa. Other Okun reviews have noted that she knew the chefs and owners she was covering, but apparently saw no conflict of interest in writing about them, or in issuing them four-star ratings. And in one of many bizarre little asides, she even described the furniture at one restaurant as "lickable". It would almost be funny if it wasn't so serious.

People have long mocked the News for passing off such awful content as reviewing, but it has offered no solution, and doesn't appear to have any succession plan for Okun in place. Competitors have shown no sign of creating viable alternatives to the News, either. What's needed in either case is new blood --trustworthy, smart, and savvy new people who aren't already facially recognizable in the Buffalo food industry."

Not wanting to spoil the party, the Horwitzes also offered some constructive advice for their readers and to the larger community of food journalists, bloggers, and foodies.  

In their view, the paper of note is in the business of flagrantly violating journalistic standards (at least those of the AFJ) in the way they're handling restaurant reviews. This is a serious charge and...just in case the rich guy who owns the paper is reading this, I didn't personally make that charge---so don't sue me!  Obviously, Jeremy and Christina are far braver than I am. They're certainly a whole lot smarter too (for I've yet to figure out how to fairly review for a place when the maitre d' has plied me with that fifth glass of wine).

Apparently, these two are old pros at doing things right and I respect that. So I figured as a BR food writer...ahem...journaliste, I should maybe check in with Jeremy to get the scoop on this ethical, objective review-type stuff before he skips town.

I sent Jeremy some questions (smuggled into his secret bunker) and here are a few replies:

Nelson Starr: Why do you think it's important or even necessary to review a restaurant incognito?

Jeremy Horwitz: A review is supposed to be fundamentally different from a news article, a feature story, or an advertisement, and readers expect that it will be.

A review should be an honest look at the overall experience of dining at a restaurant from the standpoint of an experienced patron -- but not one who is given special treatment.

Special treatment changes the experience. Once you have a recognizable face, know the chef, or order dishes that aren't on the menu, you might be eating in the same restaurant as other people, but what and how you're being served is going to be different. "Reviewing" that experience is like judging a baseball team on its performance at batting practice.

NS: What do you think IS the proper methodology for conducting a review? Take us through it. Can you then trust the results?

JH: Speaking in broad strokes, a proper review starts with the reviewer: the person needs to be honest, and to have both a broad base of experience and a real interest in the subject matter. She or he also has to possess both the ability and the willingness to communicate the distinctions between amazing, great, good, okay, and bad experiences to the target audience. And the person needs not to have ties of any sort to the places being reviewed, and can't have been brought to it with the possibility of a business relationship -- advertising, a job, or the like. If you have the right person, the process is easy.

While dining, the goal should be to enjoy the meal at a reasonable pace, giving the staff the chance to do their jobs properly. And let's emphasize "enjoy the meal." Select items that are representative of the menu. Sample each one and consider its individual quality, presentation, and pricing, along with the role it plays in the meal as a whole. Take notes on the items. Before, during, and after the meal, the reviewer shouldn't be rude, convey a sense of entitlement, or in any way create conditions that lead to special treatment -- good or bad. If the reviewer is identified, that needs to be noted in the review, and should in some cases end the reviewing process altogether. For a formal review, the reviewer should hopefully experience two meals at the restaurant, but there are situations in which this mightn't be necessary.

Soon after the meals are over, the reviewer should write the review, assembling all of the facts and opinions together into an article that walks through the overall experience, preferably putting it in perspective relative to similar competitors. Both the good and the bad of the experience need to be discussed with equal candor, openly and fairly, with fairness measured from the standpoint of a reasonable paying customer. If a rating scale is used, the reviewer should put a lot of thought into making sure that each new rating makes sense within the larger system -- if everything's getting "great" or "awful" ratings, there's probably something wrong with the system or the reviewer. Finally, at or near the end of the process, the reviewer should discuss and/or show the review to at least one of the other people who was part of the dining experience(s). If there are points of disagreement, or of strong agreement, they should be noted in the review.

At the end of this process -- again, assuming you haven't skipped steps or brought in the wrong people -- readers should be able to know relatively quickly that it was written with integrity and forethought, even if they don't agree entirely with the conclusions. The point of a restaurant review isn't to make every reader happy. It's to provide a smart, objective look at the place so that people know what to expect when they go in, or not to bother at all. Ideally, the review may even help the owners and staff to improve on facets of the experience that weren't up to snuff, or inspire competitors to step up their efforts.

Nelson Starr:...is it proper to consider the intention of the restaurant or should it be based more (or solely) on the ends and final taste, texture, etc.?  In other words, could difficulty of preparation be a factor...as well as creativity, uniqueness, and service to a particular demographic or niche? ...or, no...investigate it tabula rasa style!??

JH: The "intention" of the restaurant is worth noting, but having worked as a reviewer for nearly 20 years, I can tell you that "intent" is more often used as an excuse for bad results than as an explanation for brilliant ones. When people dine out, they generally care about the final product rather than the process. There's a lot of hype these days as to who the chef supposedly is or was, or that the berries arrived from a special place, and so on. This is largely marketing. Great food stands on its own.

NS: Is the whole project of objective restaurant review even possible when everything from the reviewer's own unavoidable subjectivity to the costly budgeting for ongoing reviews (all those expensive meals!) conspires to make the endeavor anywhere from erratic to spurious, from burdensome to impossible to financially support (especially sponsored by struggling media)? 

JH: Yes. It's not only possible, but in most cities, "the project" of objective restaurant reviewing has been ongoing for years -- frequently by more than one publication at a time.

I'm not going to attempt to lay out the business model for how it can and should be done, but certain facts are patently obvious here:

(a) People are extremely interested in reading objective restaurant reviews.

(b) There are people who are capable of writing objective restaurant reviews.

(c) There are people who aren't capable of writing objective restaurant reviews who try anyway. Some of these people are well-intentioned but incapable of being objective for various reasons. Others have agendas that they are trying to push.

If a publication is truly interested in serving its readers, it will locate and hire people to meet the readers' needs -- not just whomever's convenient. The results will pay for themselves by expanding the publication's readership and positive word-of-mouth, which will in turn improve the publication's advertising base.

If the publication is merely interested in "adding a food section" or "covering places because that's what people expect," the results will be different, and readers will know it. Reviews will look and feel like they're chasing advertising dollars or buttering up the chef/owner/bartender rather than seeking truth. In this case, the publication isn't really publishing reviews, but rather marketing pieces -- paid or unpaid ads taking the form of editorial content.

Some have said that Western New York publications don't have objective restaurant reviewers because people here don't know the difference. I disagree. Readers have been complaining about bad reviews in local publications for decades.

As with a great restaurant, people might not know all the hard work and ingredients that went into creating something special, but they know whether they like what they're being fed. And they appreciate quality. They're just waiting for the right people to come along and serve it to them.

And with that, I was a convert.  Or wait, maybe not.  At least not entirely...stay tuned to BuffaloRising.com tomorrow for Part Two.

----
Buffalo Music Hall of Fame-er and rocker Nelson Starr is known as one of Buffalo's most influential musicians, composers, and producers.  By bringing celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain to Buffalo and developing his own hit food show, All Access Pass with Nelson Starr, Nelson has dedicated himself to highlighting the region's food finds.  From pub grub to haute cuisine, Nelson is game to explore anything "that rocks" with his signature sarcasm and egalitarian ethos and philosophical outlook.