30/09/2007

Guess who's coming to dinner

By Mário Magalhães
ombudsman@uol.com.br

September 30, 2007 The food critic at the "New York Times" in the 1990s, Ruth Reichl, was so obsessive about maintaining her anonymity that she created six disguises. She took a risk at the restaurant Le Cirque in the skin of one of her personalities, and certainly, with a clean face.

Service for the journalist was more generous than for the unknown person. The service was excellent and they gave her bigger portions. "The raspberries on the new cakes were three times the size of the previous ones," she recalled in her book "Garlic and Sapphires: The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise" (Objetiva).

She instructed: "One of the basic requirements for a good food critic is the ability to be anonymous." She avoided the comradery that could affect her critiques. "I don't go to parties with chefs," she said.

Reichl was not alone. The head of the Association of Food Journalists in the United States said: "Critiques should be done anonymously whenever possible... Critics who are recognized need to say that in their critique."

For a decade in the American newspaper "Philadelphia Inquirer," Craig LaBan stayed incognito. The secret about who is behind the pseudonym was threatened later when in a critique in February about a steak costing 28 reals (about US $14), LaBan said everything except that it tasted like the sole of his shoe.

The establishment sued him, alleging that the cut of meat was not as he described. Maybe the court will require that he appear and lose what the lawyers call his trade secret.

Many eateries in New York maintain dossiers to find out when critics are at their places, as The Associated Press reported in April. They gather photographs, physical descriptions, and culinary likes and dislikes. One journalist has bad teeth. The wife of another prefers common shades of lipstick.

When Frank Bruni arrived in a restaurant, he was noticed. They had his picture, an antidote against surprises. Since 2004 he has occupied the job that used to be Reichl's at the "Times." His facial features can't be ignored because he is the author of books, but his blog has no pictures, either old or new, to make it harder to get caught.

The cat and mouse game between restauranteurs and critics has an obvious motive: the more the diner enjoys the meal and service, the better the review. Good reviews result in more clientele and bring in money.

For the restaurant, it is a money game. For journalists, it is refusal of an artificial product, which is not the same as that offered to average customers.

Ethical questions

These procedures in quality journalism do not pass unnoticed at Folha. The stylebook asserted in 1992: "Anonymity is important, for example, to check public or private service, such as restaurants."

The 2001 version of the stylebook recommended in the "ethics" entry: "When checking the services of a restaurant, for example, it is recommended that the reporter stay anonymous and pay the bill. Otherwise, the evaluation could be compromised by special attention to which the reader does not have access."

On Sept. 11, the rule was amended and paying the bill became an obligation. Another addition: "Participation will be prohibited at events when there is a real or apparent conflict of interest."

Folha preaches anonymity, but does not practice it. On April 19, it ran two pictures of its critic, Josimar Melo. It was no surprise. On Dec. 5, 2004, it had published two others. On the Internet, the Folhapress news agency ran one. The newspaper does not care if it exposes the writer.

Nor does he, as can be found in his blog, with a photo at the top, and on his website, which the day before yesterday opened with his picture.

There are other pictures. Melo, who uses the title of "cultural agitator" of gastronomy, promoted commercial events in the area when he was a critic. He created the Good Table, which he left, and More.Palate, which occurred in 2003.

As an entrepreneur, he gathered chefs to give classes and reimbursed them. Afterward, as a critic, he wrote about them in Folha. A young man who worked on the administration of More.Palate afterward had his new restaurant visited. The report pointed out positive and negative aspects and was classified as "good."

The report did not follow protocol: there was not the slightest indication that the newspaper was used for individual benefit. It is not about this, but about the "real or apparent conflict of interest" --between the one who judges the chefs and one who hired them.

Josimar Melo has a reputation as one of the most qualified gastronomic journalists in the country. In contrast to the dilettantism and exchange of favors that endured for a long time (and far from eradicated), he exercises rigor and knowledge. He understands food, and his writing is delicious.

For the reader, however, it is unfortunate that Folha's critic, distant and anonymous, will get a smaller cut of meat than the average consumer. The journalistic standard for service should be equal to others falsely more noble - as in the stylebook formula.

Gastronomic critic sees no problem

Josimar Melo, 53, since the beginning of the 1990s, has been a gastronomic critic at Folha, which always pays for his meals. I sought his opinion and that of the newspaper.

The managing editor asserted: "It is Folha's ideal for the critic to remain anonymous. It was a mistake to have published Josimar's photos."

The critic said: "Total anonymity, with the enormous professionalization of reporting about restaurants, seems impossible. In some months public relations advisers (who come from newsrooms or visit them and know the faces of journalists) have already seen the critics on their initial visits to recently opened restaurants, already showed them to the maitre d's and chefs and food servers, who a few months later will be working in another restaurant and identify them as critics.

"Anyway, I never announce my visits to restaurants, and in many cases they don't know me. Even when they know me, this does not affect the quality of the food (which is my criterion for judging, to give stars or not...)."

As for the event in 2003, he said: "When I did this event these chefs were contracted to teach classes. They were paid. They did not give favors or deference to the critic. If I do a critique on one of their restaurants, I will do it with the usual impartiality. I don't 'owe' them anything.

"The newspaper frequently asks chefs (or writers or artists in various areas) to do something - an exclusive recipe, an unpublished poem. Recipes are customarily not paid for. They are treated as journalistic material. (and the artist probably feels compensated by publication, I don't know).

"Maybe the newspaper runs the risk of being in a position of creditor to the artist (who, notwithstanding, could be critiqued in the future)."

Regarding the person contracted for More.Palate whose restaurant was critiqued: "He was contracted to work in the organization. He was an employee. The event ended... and the next year this former employee opened a restaurant."

-Translation by John Wright

Translation by John Wright