After bravely naming names and taking Buffalo's journalists to task in his final post at BuffaloChow, food blogger-cum-journalist Jeremy Horwitz was kind enough to field some questions relating to that controversial post in Part One of this column. Thank you Jeremy for your insight.
Since this topic seems to be in the zeitgeist, I figure I better weigh in on it before I become irrelevant or, worse yet, cease to wildly tick people off again. People are counting on me for that, if nothing else!
Although I am quite sympathetic to the complaints and suggestions of Jeremy, I think the project of critical review (be it relating to food, fine art, music, literature--you name it) contains, at its center, a troublesome kernel of pure subjectivity that I'm not sure any procedural algorithm--no matter how well-intentioned and vigorously applied- can meaningfully transcend. Translation: I dig and respect everything BuffaloChow is urging with respect to good journalism, I'm just not sure that ethics is the biggest issue preventing insightful discourse relating to food and restaurants in WNY. Furthermore, I'm not sure true objectivity is possible pertaining to things that derive so intimately from our senses.
Admittedly, I have no doubt or dispute with JH that it's far better for a reviewer to avoid, say, sheer graft in exchange for positive reviews, or that anonymity should theoretically give the reviewer a more "average" experience. If you're going to do reviews and call them "reviews", as opposed to "features" or "articles" and the like, yes, what Jeremy advocates is most likely the best, most ethical, way to do them. So, then I would never argue with the AFJ's Guidelines (or for that matter, The Code for Food Bloggers, either. Thus I agree with Jeremy and his basic gripe that publications claiming to do proper food reviews should do a far better job of adhering to ethical standards. Personally, I feel that this is a bigger problem at a big-city newspaper than at a blog, for instance, but, precisely in this case, Buffalo deserves to be singled out for a scolding.
My only rejoinder is that, sadly, even if you follow these guidelines down to the letter, it doesn't necessarily yield "the truth" about a dish or a restaurant. And this is also a serious problem, mainly for the diner looking for valuable guidance. It's the same problem that has made me want to blowtorch Rolling Stone magazine every time their review staff trashes an album or artist I dig and then praises some talentless wanker. This is age-old and deep.
One problem starts with the use and over-extrapolation of the term "objective". That term smells of a certain arrogance to me--like a braggart constantly making claims and boasts he just can't live up to. This is because bundled into the term "objective" (in this context pertaining to food) lies the assumption that, if you follow certain review guidelines, you can ascertain something beyond mere opinion when it comes to matters of taste and other aesthetic judgments. But that's not necessarily so, and may be practically irrelevant. One need only to watch the bickering judges on Iron Chef America to ascertain that the same exact dish, under identical rules, can (and often does) conjure wildly different opinions concerning it. At its base, appreciation for food or any other artistic product starts with a very personal sensory experience-- subsequently filtered through reason and experience (i.e. culture, upbringing, etc.).
I don't want to argue for total relativism or, worse, solipsism but, let's face it, "you like vanilla, I like chocolate" is not too far from what I mean, and that's the eternal problem. On top of that, even if the reviewer is as pure as organic Irish cream (because he follows AFJ guidelines to the letter and is a highly ethical person whether at the table or away from it), it still doesn't begin to obviate these secondary issues, biases, predilections, experiences, or sub-conscious agendas that any person, including a reviewer, surely has. Claiming that anything close to true objectivity is even possible in this realm is, to me, almost silly, no matter how laudable a goal it would be if possible.
So what are we left with beyond some "oriental haze" (to quote Hegel)? Since we all probably agree that a fresh baguette is superior to a stale one and that restaurants that kick-ass are superlative to those that suck-ass, how do we assess food and restaurants without having to personally audition each and every one? Publications? Word of mouth? Advertising? Yes, to any and all of the above! The caveat here is to take all these opinions--informed, ethical, fraudulent, even intoxicated--with a fat-fingered pinch of salt (preferably Fleur de Sel de Guérande). I read reviews. I get information from reviews. But I never really believe reviews, or at least I don't swallow them hook, line, and sinker. I sniff around the edges, but I don't drink the Kool-Aid.
If I had to, I'd rather follow the culinary advice of Jeremy who tirelessly works the seam (so you don't have to) and uses the latest technology and policies to get the job done. I'd also probably more or less ignore the ramblings of old ladies who wear bad hats to Sunday brunch. But that, for me, has more to do with Jeremy's credibility and impeccability of taste--yes, that ineffable but prized quality--than his journalistic procedure. He has good taste! There's nothing all that objective going on there. Rather, it's more apt to call it, think of it, and accept it as some kind of taut subjectivity regarding aesthetic excellence, good taste in food in this case.
Alas, as it does for Jeremy, it all also comes down to trust for me. But unlike Jeremy, I don't necessarily care all that much if "my" reviewer happens to be hanging out with the dishwasher snorting coke behind the dumpster as long as he's "my" guy and I know his taste and mine are generally in-sync (no, I'm not referring to Tony Bourdain here, everyone knows he prefers heroin anyway).
Honestly, I almost think that what's most important critically is that I, the diner, be the harsh critic of the critic, in order to find one I can trust. Forget about what this or that esteemed reviewer has to say about this or that esteemed restaurant. Instead, I want to find a critic or blogger that I can relate to, not so much because he is anonymous or observes certain strict standards but way more because he likes the same saucy wings I like or because she likes the dirty dive bars that play Brit-rock nice and effin loud. I'm looking for simpatico, not credentials, aesthetic judgment as opposed to aesthetic methodology.
In our bloated blog world, this is not only possible but preferable. Instead of going with one or two big-time journalists, I might rather browse various unscrupulous but savvy, hip, and connected bloggers that I trust anyway or "follow". Or in the case of BuffaloChow, was the best of both worlds.
I can't tell you how many times I've disagreed strongly with totally ethical, experienced, well-meaning reviewers, be they food or film critics, etc. What I'd rather look for are critics that I agree with most of the time. Beyond that, I'll be taking my chances, no matter what safeguards are ostensibly in place. Jeremy and Christina were like that for me. Following the rules certainly didn't hurt their work, and I'm sure it made it even better. But it was their taste, their keen sensibility and clear headed judgment, that I'll miss a whole lot more.
----
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, egalitarian ethos and philosophical outlook.
View image
Since this topic seems to be in the zeitgeist, I figure I better weigh in on it before I become irrelevant or, worse yet, cease to wildly tick people off again. People are counting on me for that, if nothing else!
Although I am quite sympathetic to the complaints and suggestions of Jeremy, I think the project of critical review (be it relating to food, fine art, music, literature--you name it) contains, at its center, a troublesome kernel of pure subjectivity that I'm not sure any procedural algorithm--no matter how well-intentioned and vigorously applied- can meaningfully transcend. Translation: I dig and respect everything BuffaloChow is urging with respect to good journalism, I'm just not sure that ethics is the biggest issue preventing insightful discourse relating to food and restaurants in WNY. Furthermore, I'm not sure true objectivity is possible pertaining to things that derive so intimately from our senses.
Admittedly, I have no doubt or dispute with JH that it's far better for a reviewer to avoid, say, sheer graft in exchange for positive reviews, or that anonymity should theoretically give the reviewer a more "average" experience. If you're going to do reviews and call them "reviews", as opposed to "features" or "articles" and the like, yes, what Jeremy advocates is most likely the best, most ethical, way to do them. So, then I would never argue with the AFJ's Guidelines (or for that matter, The Code for Food Bloggers, either. Thus I agree with Jeremy and his basic gripe that publications claiming to do proper food reviews should do a far better job of adhering to ethical standards. Personally, I feel that this is a bigger problem at a big-city newspaper than at a blog, for instance, but, precisely in this case, Buffalo deserves to be singled out for a scolding.
My only rejoinder is that, sadly, even if you follow these guidelines down to the letter, it doesn't necessarily yield "the truth" about a dish or a restaurant. And this is also a serious problem, mainly for the diner looking for valuable guidance. It's the same problem that has made me want to blowtorch Rolling Stone magazine every time their review staff trashes an album or artist I dig and then praises some talentless wanker. This is age-old and deep.
One problem starts with the use and over-extrapolation of the term "objective". That term smells of a certain arrogance to me--like a braggart constantly making claims and boasts he just can't live up to. This is because bundled into the term "objective" (in this context pertaining to food) lies the assumption that, if you follow certain review guidelines, you can ascertain something beyond mere opinion when it comes to matters of taste and other aesthetic judgments. But that's not necessarily so, and may be practically irrelevant. One need only to watch the bickering judges on Iron Chef America to ascertain that the same exact dish, under identical rules, can (and often does) conjure wildly different opinions concerning it. At its base, appreciation for food or any other artistic product starts with a very personal sensory experience-- subsequently filtered through reason and experience (i.e. culture, upbringing, etc.).
I don't want to argue for total relativism or, worse, solipsism but, let's face it, "you like vanilla, I like chocolate" is not too far from what I mean, and that's the eternal problem. On top of that, even if the reviewer is as pure as organic Irish cream (because he follows AFJ guidelines to the letter and is a highly ethical person whether at the table or away from it), it still doesn't begin to obviate these secondary issues, biases, predilections, experiences, or sub-conscious agendas that any person, including a reviewer, surely has. Claiming that anything close to true objectivity is even possible in this realm is, to me, almost silly, no matter how laudable a goal it would be if possible.
So what are we left with beyond some "oriental haze" (to quote Hegel)? Since we all probably agree that a fresh baguette is superior to a stale one and that restaurants that kick-ass are superlative to those that suck-ass, how do we assess food and restaurants without having to personally audition each and every one? Publications? Word of mouth? Advertising? Yes, to any and all of the above! The caveat here is to take all these opinions--informed, ethical, fraudulent, even intoxicated--with a fat-fingered pinch of salt (preferably Fleur de Sel de Guérande). I read reviews. I get information from reviews. But I never really believe reviews, or at least I don't swallow them hook, line, and sinker. I sniff around the edges, but I don't drink the Kool-Aid.
If I had to, I'd rather follow the culinary advice of Jeremy who tirelessly works the seam (so you don't have to) and uses the latest technology and policies to get the job done. I'd also probably more or less ignore the ramblings of old ladies who wear bad hats to Sunday brunch. But that, for me, has more to do with Jeremy's credibility and impeccability of taste--yes, that ineffable but prized quality--than his journalistic procedure. He has good taste! There's nothing all that objective going on there. Rather, it's more apt to call it, think of it, and accept it as some kind of taut subjectivity regarding aesthetic excellence, good taste in food in this case.
Alas, as it does for Jeremy, it all also comes down to trust for me. But unlike Jeremy, I don't necessarily care all that much if "my" reviewer happens to be hanging out with the dishwasher snorting coke behind the dumpster as long as he's "my" guy and I know his taste and mine are generally in-sync (no, I'm not referring to Tony Bourdain here, everyone knows he prefers heroin anyway).
Honestly, I almost think that what's most important critically is that I, the diner, be the harsh critic of the critic, in order to find one I can trust. Forget about what this or that esteemed reviewer has to say about this or that esteemed restaurant. Instead, I want to find a critic or blogger that I can relate to, not so much because he is anonymous or observes certain strict standards but way more because he likes the same saucy wings I like or because she likes the dirty dive bars that play Brit-rock nice and effin loud. I'm looking for simpatico, not credentials, aesthetic judgment as opposed to aesthetic methodology.
In our bloated blog world, this is not only possible but preferable. Instead of going with one or two big-time journalists, I might rather browse various unscrupulous but savvy, hip, and connected bloggers that I trust anyway or "follow". Or in the case of BuffaloChow, was the best of both worlds.
I can't tell you how many times I've disagreed strongly with totally ethical, experienced, well-meaning reviewers, be they food or film critics, etc. What I'd rather look for are critics that I agree with most of the time. Beyond that, I'll be taking my chances, no matter what safeguards are ostensibly in place. Jeremy and Christina were like that for me. Following the rules certainly didn't hurt their work, and I'm sure it made it even better. But it was their taste, their keen sensibility and clear headed judgment, that I'll miss a whole lot more.
----
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, egalitarian ethos and philosophical outlook.
![[XML element 'prod_name_5' contains multiple values]](http://store.buffalorising.com/Imgs/Product_Imgs/small/sahlens_S.jpg)
I'm confident that the only troublesome kernel is your writing style. my sense is that you are trying to be clever & cunning, yet it comes across as ponderous, pretentious, & a serious pain to figure out what the hell you're trying to say. it's amatuerish to try fool the reader. I made an honest attempt but could not get more than a third through the article.
as an aside, the horowitz's would get my vote to supplant the dinosaur at the news.