There are a lot of things that make newspapers unique. First on the list is this: we routinely anger our two main sources of revenue, i.e. readers and advertisers. Sometimes we do both at the same time. That’s a twofer. Do we go out of our way to do this? Nope. But it comes with the territory.
That’s the situation we’re in right now with our restaurant critic, The Dinner Belle, who wrote a less-than-glowing review of Dudley’s on the Park. The owners didn’t like it, so they’re conducting a little flier campaign to try to unmask her. Which I guess is their right, even if it’s a bit juvenile.
Restaurant critics have a tough job. A bad review can hurt a restaurant, maybe even close a restaurant. So there’s all that rah-rah “help the local economy stuff”. Which leaves a newspaper with three alternatives. One is to take the Lake Woebegon approach: all restaurants are above average. The second is to not review any of them. The third is to only write up reviews where the restaurants would get good marks. None of these work for me. It’s an abdication of our responsibility to inform.
The two scarcest resources people have these days are time and money. What good critics do is tell people what they think are wise investments of those resources. Do we expect people to agree with critics every time? Of course not. That would be boring.
What I ask of the paper’s critics is simply this: Be honest, be open-minded, be professional, be prepared, be entertaining. I know the Dinner Belle. The Dinner Belle knows food. And if you go back and read her reviews, you will see that she is extremely diverse in what she likes. She’s not anti-downtown, or anti-suburbs, or anti-sandwich shops, or anti-steakhouse etc. To me, that’s a signal that she is focused on what she finds when she walks in the door.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
Post a comment