The short version of the
Route 9 / Miami New Times review kerfuffle, now that all the facts anyone is willing to disclose (and some they maybe didn't want to disclose) appear to be out:
Miami New Times posts a
fairly harsh review of a two-month old restaurant to its website; owners complain and note several factual errors, express concern that critic never actually visited or relied on information provided by a chef from a soon-to-open local restaurant; newspaper briefly pulls review from website; the next day, newspaper reposts review with several factual errors corrected;
editor acknowledges that critic dined with another chef, that they "are old friends and once had planned to write a cookbook together," but says that concern over influence on review "doesn't hold water;" categorically denies that the critic didn't dine there. Meanwhile, the same day, the
Miami Herald posts a fairly glowing
three-star review.
Having had a chance to digest, and at risk of prolonging the discussion past the point of utility, I have some further questions and thoughts:
(1)
Should a critic dine - for a review - in the company of a chef from another local restaurant? The
Association of Food Journalists' Food Critics Guidelines doesn't expressly speak to it. The
Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics only vaguely says that journalists should "remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility." My initial reaction was that, while it is unlikely to "compromise integrity," it could well "damage credibility." In my day job, it's what we call the "appearance of impropriety."
I'm confident that New Times' critic, Lee Klein, is able to form his own opinions; but I also understand how a restaurateur could feel that opinion was influenced by the presence of "competition" - particularly, competition that had been identified as a "difficult table."
[1] The notion that a critic doesn't take into account fellow diners' opinions is unrealistic; any claim that Klein doesn't do so is belied by the fact that he has previously
described his dining companions' views in his reviews.
I found New Times editor Chuck Strouse's dismissal of these concerns - because the other restaurant is 20 minutes away, and was not yet opened - a bit too blithe. I might have felt differently if Klein's fellow diner, Chef Klime Kovaceski, worked at an established restaurant that had already been reviewed. But that's not the case: his restaurant,
Trio on the Bay, is opening the same week that this review dropped (something he could easily know since he was eating with Klein a week before), and it's not unreasonable to think that any buzz from a positive review for
Route 9 might take away from Trio's opening week buzz.
[2] Again, I'm not saying that's the case, I'm only saying that it is understandable how such an impression could be made.
But it was interesting to me that in an informal twitter poll, most diners and chefs who responded were not bothered by it. The typical response was that "
Integrity, honesty and personal opinion should dictate." With that, I completely agree. Speaking of which ...
(2)
Should Lee Klein be writing about Chef Kovaceski's restaurant? To me, this is a no-brainer, but one that has slid beneath the radar as discussion has focused on the Route 9 review. We now know that Lee Klein and Chef Kovaceski are "old friends," and are close enough that they "once" had plans to write a book together (the
cached version of Kovaceski's website referred to those plans as recently as a couple weeks ago).
[3] Klein has already done two posts on Kovaceski's new restaurant on the New Times
Short Order blog: a
puffy preview piece back in February, and just a few days ago, a "
First Look" promising even more posts next week. Is there any circumstance where a journalist should be writing about the restaurant of an "old friend," without at a minimum disclosing that relationship? Seems to me Klein shouldn't be writing about Kovaceski's restaurants at all. And I wonder, if this all hadn't come out, if Klein would have been writing a review of Trio a couple months from now. Speaking of which ...
(continued ...)