Recently, Time.com published an article entitled "In Praise of the Endangered Restaurant Critic" by award-winning writer Josh Ozersky. I wholeheartedly agree with Ozersky that the culinary world needs food critics, of which there are but a few truly great ones. However, I fear that waxing nostalgic for the way things were 10, 20 and 40 years ago has become de rigueur and tiresome.
It is curious that incredulous media outlets are still reporting as if culinary celebrity, food-TV popularity and food writing on the web represent a new phenomenon. These are the same outlets that consider "blogs" and "websites" synonymous, and forget that – as with print media – not all media are created equal. Such commentary makes writers sound dated, out of touch. It's also poor reporting. Then again, there may be some intentional slighting at play, as I doubt Time.com would consider itself one of "the blogs."
These are the same media outlets that typically cast condescending aspersions on entire segments of the population: "When news broke last week that Raymond Sokolov, the longtime restaurant critic of the Wall Street Journal, was out after 25 years, the average foodie probably didn't look up from his plate." Translation: the typical culinary enthusiast is a gluttonous troglodyte who doesn't read national news or have any interest in reading about the gastronomic arts. Apparently, the modern "foodie" is no better than Mr. Creosote.
Fact is, things change: the way we eat has changed, restaurants have changed and communication has changed. People adapt – some media outlets do not. Sadly, budget constraints have forced the hand of many media outlets. As Ozersky notes, the days of publications picking up the critic's tab are dwindling.
So, is there such thing as a professional restaurant reporter? Very few old guard food writers (Frank Bruni, Alan Richman, et al) began with a culinary degree and/or rigorous training in food writing. Most began their careers reporting on myriad beats for city newspapers, seated at many a department desk throughout their careers. These assignments rarely had anything to do with restaurants, food or drink. Through journalism study, extensive on-the-job reporter training and editing experience, these writers found their voice. They developed acute observational skills. They became masters of reporting anything and everything.
Reporting on food is another journalistic pursuit, and one that a select few happen to be quite good at. However, I hesitate to call anybody a professional restaurant reporter. I think "journalist" should suffice. Any good one understands the nuances of a great critic.
Jobs still evolve in much the same roundabout way as they did for the nation's most noted critics. The difference being now that many online, print and TV food voices haven't a lick of journalism training, no inkling of ethics and no editor to make them sound better (or literate, in many cases).
Then there is anonymity. Ruth Reichl wore costumes to help conceal her identity, and Bruni worked very hard to maintain a low profile. Neither were wholly successful in remaining anonymous. The former famously reported how her service at Le Cirque changed when her and Times editor Warren Hoge's presence became known. That was in New York City, one of the world's largest metropolises. Now, try being anonymous in a town as insular as Cleveland.
