times goes without critic
tommyAs last year ended, St. Pete Times restaurant critic Chris Sherman hung up his alias as he got out of the business. We even wrote about it on the sticks saying that the Times was in the market for a new reviewer. Looks like we may have been mistaken.
Three months later, they still have no regular critic. Since December, the bottom of the review includes “Until a replacement for Chris Sherman is named, Weekend features guest critics.” Guest critics have included editor Tom Scherberger, and staff writer Janet Keeler. Copy editor Jim Webster - a culinary tourist and amateur caterer - wrote a review. They asked freelance writer Laura Reiley, a former food critic at the San Francisco Chronicle to write a recent restaurant review. All good, right? I mean - at least the reviews are getting written “Until a replacement for Chris Sherman is named,” of course.
But then we learned that the St. Pete Times is cutting jobs through attrition. Which leads to rumors about the Times choosing not to replace Chris Sherman at all. To you and me, I don’t believe it’s a big deal. After all, we can simply rely on Matt to tell us all about local restaurants.
Does it matter? Should your newspaper have a specific restaurant critic? What if you owned an eatery?
Loading ...
March 29th, 2007 at 9:16 am
The Tampa Tribune has still not replaced theater critic Amanda Henry. She left in November.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:49 am
It is generally better to have one critic (restaurant, film, or otherwise), because he or she will use the same standards for reviews.
What is good service to one person may be bad service to another. What food tastes good to one person may not taste good to another.
Of course, personal bias would enter. I could never review restaurants as I have a limited palette. So anyone’s seafood would not get a good review from me.
Matt does a great job reviewing local restaurants. Maybe the Times can just pay him as a freelance reviewer?!?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Just wanted to add my quick 2 cents as I have been watching this with interest.
First, thanks to Jim for the very nice compliment!
Second, I do think it’s important to have one consistent reviewer/critic for several reasons - 1) reader gets familiar with that personality/voice, builds trust/relationship with them over time through the reviews whether they realize it or not 2) Like Jim said, one critic should result in consistency/even-handedness in their reviews- what they expect, instead of a hodge-podge of potentially varying standards and expectations each week.
I didn’t always agree with Chris Sherman’s reviews, but I did look fwd to them each week for new ideas and I knew what to expect. This revolving door/freelance review route sounds like a “penny wise, pound foolish” strategy.
But then again, these are the kind of moves that the newspaper industry as a whole seems to be making in the name of cost-cutting that is making their plight worse. They already face 1) declining circulation and rising distribution costs 2) aging customer base 3) declining share of ad dollars from online competition and alternative channels …then they compound problems by chopping budgets on content resulting in a lower quality product.
Newspaper of course isn’t the only traditional media doing this. Radio is automating/standardizing away the local personalities in most markets in the name of operating scale/cost improvements.
I enjoy writing about local restaurants, but think my short reviews work best in a blog format. I think the Times is looking for folks with culinary chops that will write in great flowery detail about the ingredients in each dish, the cooking methods, the atmosphere, etc. As well, as tend to be “nicely critical” (how many times did Chris Sheman really let a restaurant have it if they deserved it?) - not really my thing.
Ok, so my 2 cents weren’t so quick
March 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I have always wondered if newspaper/tv food critics are biased or not because it always seems they report on restaurants that advertise with their paper/station. Jack Harris has a “trust me” reputation around here but I have been mislead a few times in the last couple of years by his restaurant recommendations. Just my opinion…
March 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Food criticism is vital because food can be vital to a city’s identity. A newspaper’s job is to be local. Can’t get much more local than the food scene.
You might hate the arts. You may think movies suck. You may not have time to spend on a novel.
But everybody eats. Being a food critic is more than just about putting your palate to the test. You’re eating on behalf of the consumer and letting them know what’s worth their money and what isn’t.
Tampa, St. Petersburg and Sarasota have an abundance of wonderful places to eat that give you a flavor for living here. It would be a shame to turn off that spigot of information.
I applaud Tommy and Sticks for realizing the value of that service - and what a smart business decision it is to offer it. Matt does a great job.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
IMHO a paper cannot be taken seriously unless it has a food critic who is not afraid to, hold the phone, be critical. I still read the Washington Post reviews every Sunday and I only eat in that area about twice a year now.
I don’t imagine we’ll be reading anything from Matt about French peasant style organ meats or other ultra foodie stuff, but I agree with those who think he’s doing a great job with what he does-consistent voice, calls them like he sees them, searches out the little neighborhood spots.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:05 am
When I moved to Tampa, I was gung ho about restaurants and finding the great food in Tampa. I was also shocked that there were no blogs about food. I quickly found out why; there isn’t much excitement about food in Tampa (stay with me here). Matt started his blog right about the time I started mine, and unfortunately it didn’t take long for me to lose interest.
I came from a city that embraces food and places it in the center of all social events; a place where food is the topic of conversation. Tampa is such a melting pot of transplants who have emigrated from other parts of the country and Bay area still hasn’t developed its own culture. In Tampa, we have professional baseball, football and hockey; wonderful beaches and fantastic weather as well as our share of national acts (grand prix racing and air shows come to mind). On the other hand, art and food simply don’t take precedence. No negativity here; I just call it like it is.
So who is first, the chicken or the egg? Is it necessary to have a flourishing restaurant community in order to create excitement and the need for a critic? Or is it vital that a critic be in place to create excitement about food in order to stimulate the restaurant scene? Only time will tell.
I really appreciate weekly reviews by Brian Ries in Creative Loafing, but more often than not, I read about yet another place that I don’t have to spend my money in dining. Week after week, the verdict is generally lackluster and shows how disappointing and tough it is to find a great meal. However, his writing is realistic, down to earth and there’s rarely a hint of pretentiousness.
I was pretty dissapointed when I found out Chris Sherman named Roy’s as the best restaurant in the Bay area for 2006. He lost all credibility with me when he published that list. I was even more dissapointed several weeks ago when I dined at Roy’s and had one of the best meals in recent memory in Tampa. I was discouraged that I had to dine at a chain restaurant in order to get a consistent and great meal. Perhaps that is the direction we are headed, but I’d like to think the contrary. I enjoy reading Matt’s findings of neighborhood joints and am happy that he has continued writing. I may one day continue, but at this time I just don’t have the energy or the desire to write negatively about any local restaurant (I’ve had too many mediocre meals that I’d rather not report on).
Do we need a food critic? Yes, but how many do we need? Between the two local papers and Creative Loafing, are three critics too many? I think we DO need one at each major publication. We NEED people writing and talking about food and promoting local restaurants before our only choices are Chili’s, Outback and Bonefish Grill. I hope the St. Pete Times realizes this.
-Kevin
March 30th, 2007 at 9:47 am
ill second uptownkevins notions. i too think the weekly planets reviews are typically spot on. that they usually end up deflating the hype over some new joint only confirms my own impressions after eating at many of them. tampas is great at designing wow decor for its new restaurants. the only thing missing is typically flavour in much of the food round yonder.
too many newspaper reviews take the easy way out by simply cataloguing what the local ‘critic’ ate. i keep waiting to read a judgment. often, it doesnt come, or if it does, it is tepid in the extreme.
lets not forget the newspaper critics get their food checks picked up by their employers who are in the business of selling as many ads, restaurants included, as possible to stay in business. so there is an inherent conflict of interest in newspaper dining reviews.
that said, it was contest betw th times and trib over the better reviewing effort: chrsi sherman at least seemed to know his food and cooking and did sometimes pan places, albeit gently and with encouragement over how to fix the flaws.
meanwhile, matt is giving it a fun go by checking out all the offbeat joints. he makes his judgment calls in the end, which is why his blog entries are worth reading and responding to….
March 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
ill second uptown kevin. the weekly planet runs the best reviews. that they usually deflate the latest hype over some new joint only confirms my own opinion after eating in them, once, that is.
newspaper food critics face an inherent conflict: their employers are in the business of selling ads to as many buyers as possible. thats why you so often read such tepid reviews in the trib and less so the times. sherman at least wasnt afraid to pan a place,albeit gently and with advice on how to improve.
meanwhile, i like matts blog entries. he makes his calls which is why hes worth reading and responding to.
tampas eating scene has some great decor. its the food flavour the chefs and owners seem to forget about in the end….why?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I prefer Matt’s style of writing restaurant reviews. Perhaps with just a tad of polishing, his reviews would be right for the Times, and a refreshing addition to the local food scene. I say, skip half of the b.s. in most critic’s reviews and let me know whether or not to eat there! (and I would not be ordering any “french peasant style organ meats” anyway!)
March 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I started writing restaurant reviews for a national mag a few months back and I read tons and tons and tons of them from other sources in preparation.
I noticed a couple of things - first off, the really strong ones actually discuss the food *knowledgeably* so that people who aren’t foodies can learn and be entertained.
Secondly, most reviews are really amateurish. Waaaaay too many barely even hit the food in that much detail. There are observations of ambience and service and there’s a lot of folksy star-writing in them (get to know me, get to know me!). That kind of writing doesn’t belong in magazines or newspapers.
So, the first thing I realized was that restaurant reviews are hard to write. I spent a lot of time thinking about the writing mode and learning about what flavors I needed to be looking for in the meals and what words would describe them to a wide group of people without being *too* subjective, but also showing the personal consistency you guys are all mentioning.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Times just really hasn’t found anyone qualified. I love doing it, but part of why I like it is because it forces me to really push my limits and learn about a complex subject. I’m lucky this particular mag took a risk on a novice food writer, because it is challenging work.
That being said Creative Loafing’s critic, with whom I ate at Oystercatchers for a review he wrote, did nothing but bitch the whole time we were there, but it turns out he’s one of the best food writers I read. He’s clever and his writing is clean and balanced and informed.
And it’s really about the food, not just what he thinks about the food, which is the real trick.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Take two, b/c I’m sure there’s no censorship in the Sticks, right Tommy?
OK, Rachel, so this wouldn’t happen to be YOU who wrote these fru fru little reviews for AOL [see link below]. They seem to be filled with discussion of ambience, service and folksiness [which you just criticized above and I thought real food reviewers didn't do?] and read like trumped up marketing pieces.
I’m sure you’ll have a great explanation that will wow us.
http://search.cityguide.aol.com/tampabay/restaurants/captain-jacks-food-and-spirits/v-288536
April 1st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Aw, you researched me!
Nothing wow about it, though - those AOL clips aren’t anywhere close to what the Times would have for a restaurant review. They’re traffic generators!
They’re also not the job I was referring to above. I wrote those while I was still getting my Bachelors.
And I’m still right - that job at the Times requires a lot of specialized skill, so it’s probably tough to fill. That is what every single thing I said above supports. It’s tough work and it needs someone really good.
But you made a good point, too - that you’re kind of a dick for no real reason.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Oh, I get it. You’re the same Matt who writes about restaurants here.
OK, I think you could do the Times job, too. Better? Jeez . . .
April 5th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
[...] week after we asked about the St. Pete Times taking three months to fill the role of restaurant reviewer, the Times announced a replacement for Chris Sherman. Food [...]