One of my main issues with food "critics", both professional and amateur, is that they act they are on a different team than the owner/chef. It is often an "us vs. them" kind of thing, as if they are there to find the problems and then "inform" the public about them. I am a paid food writer, and my first interest is enjoying great food experiences, whether that is at a posh restaurant or shivering on a cold damp camp morning frying SPAM on a cast iron pan over an open flame. The best way to achieve this is to talk to the owners/chefs with issues, not to announce them publicly. This is because I am but one opinion of many, but I have more sway than most. Plus, restaurateurs are usually doing this out of passion, so their first interest is to make things right and make sure their guests have the best experience possible. I don't know how it is in other towns but in my hometown, if you have a problem with a meal, you tell the owner and they fix it. There is no "educational" value for them in getting slammed on social media. Then again, this is why I never call myself a "critic". I simply write about my positive food (and drink) experiences, while "educating" readers on interesting cuisines and how the owners/chefs are connected to the food and to our town. There is too much negativity in the world to write "critical" reviews of 'bad' restaurants. In a small town like mine, a restaurant will not last if it is not top quality, whether it is a taco shop or a Michelin restaurant, so there is no need for me to rant about places I do not like. Most food writers are in this same boat - small town, their employer can't afford multiple visits., etc. It's all about context and other than a few big city food writers, everyone from paid to unpaid "critics" should think twice about why they are writing. If it is to elevate the experience for everyone, talking to the owners will do that. If it is just to try to get famous by writing critical knit-picky pieces, they should take up another hobby.
Great article!
One of my main issues with food "critics", both professional and amateur, is that they act they are on a different team than the owner/chef. It is often an "us vs. them" kind of thing, as if they are there to find the problems and then "inform" the public about them. I am a paid food writer, and my first interest is enjoying great food experiences, whether that is at a posh restaurant or shivering on a cold damp camp morning frying SPAM on a cast iron pan over an open flame. The best way to achieve this is to talk to the owners/chefs with issues, not to announce them publicly. This is because I am but one opinion of many, but I have more sway than most. Plus, restaurateurs are usually doing this out of passion, so their first interest is to make things right and make sure their guests have the best experience possible. I don't know how it is in other towns but in my hometown, if you have a problem with a meal, you tell the owner and they fix it. There is no "educational" value for them in getting slammed on social media. Then again, this is why I never call myself a "critic". I simply write about my positive food (and drink) experiences, while "educating" readers on interesting cuisines and how the owners/chefs are connected to the food and to our town. There is too much negativity in the world to write "critical" reviews of 'bad' restaurants. In a small town like mine, a restaurant will not last if it is not top quality, whether it is a taco shop or a Michelin restaurant, so there is no need for me to rant about places I do not like. Most food writers are in this same boat - small town, their employer can't afford multiple visits., etc. It's all about context and other than a few big city food writers, everyone from paid to unpaid "critics" should think twice about why they are writing. If it is to elevate the experience for everyone, talking to the owners will do that. If it is just to try to get famous by writing critical knit-picky pieces, they should take up another hobby.