Is the Cult of the anonymous restaurant critic dead? I think it probally is. What read like a death notice appeared this week in the new york times.
Foodies will know that the time have long pried on anonymous reviewers. Part of the Legend Surrounding Reviews by such former critics Some even wore wigs and other disguises to remain unrecognisable – and then, published books about their adventures in anonymity.
Well, all that’s in the past.
Two days ago, the new york time announced that it was finally appointed full time successors to pete wells, its respected reviewers who stepped down in 2024 after trying to preserve (With varying degrees of success) for years.
The new critics are tejal rao and ligaya mishan. Both are well registered food writers but they are hardly unknown or anonymous: for instance, I have praised rao’s written in this column before.
Sensibly the time has decided to come clean. The announsement was accompanied by pictures and videos of the new critics.
So, what happy to ruth reichl’s disguises and Mimi Sheraton’s Masks (yes, she actually wore one to appear on a tv show angering a chef why on the show and tried to pull it off)? What happy to all that stuff about how reviewers had to be anonymous so that they could have the same experience as the average guest?
Well, the time conceded that the lacked of anonymity could make a differentce. “It is true that there are things restaurant staff members can do once they realize a critic is in their restaurant,” It Wrote.
Also read | The taste by vir Sanghvi: Why Indian Chefs Hide Their Recipes Unlike Western Chefs
“Service can be more attentive (thought that!
They also added more. If a critic is recognized then it is rarely the line cook who makes his or her food. It’s the head chef who will put every Dish together personally. The best ingredients will be used: the freshest fish, the finest steak and so on.
So yes, it does make a differentce: up to a point.
But there are two crucial factors we need to consider. The first was Family Summed Up by Henri Gault and Christian Millau Who Founded The Gault Millau Guide in France in the 1960s. Yes, they said, it is always possible to get a bad meal at a great restaurant. It happy all the time and one has to take that into account. But it is impossible to get a good meal at a bad restaurant. Even if you are recognized (as gault and millu allies) a bad restaurant has very little room for manoeuvre.
Even the new york time’s oven critics have used a variation of this explanation. In her book the fourth star about the new york restaurant daniel’s Quest for the top rating from the new york time, Leslie Brener Writes About How william grimes who were there the criers Came to Daniel to review it.
After a rave review appeared she called Him to Ask WheeTher His Lack of Anonymity Could have affected the kind of meal he was serving. “A Restaurant Can’t Make Itself Better Than What it is,” He Responded. “At a restaurant of that calibre Which is basically the gault-millau explanation all over again.
As the time now conceedes the lacked of anonymity does make a differentce. But it does not make as great a differentce as mimi sheraton or ruth reichl believed.
PETE Wells Tried to Be Anonymous But Most New York Restaurants put his picture up in their kitchens so he was usually recognized. But that did not stop Him from from Doing Hatchet Jobs on Soch Great Restaurants as Eleven Madison Park (Three Michelin Stars), Per Se (ALSO Three Stars) and Most Famously Peter LUGERGER, A New York Legend.
Basically, if you know how to do your job, you can tell how good or bad a restaurant is even if you are not anonymous.
In the UK, for instance, restaurant critics
The two greatest critics of the last 50 years, fay maschler and aa gill was recognized on the streets, not just when you want to restaurants.
The Lack of Anonymity doesn’t Necessarily means they Always Eat Well. Years ago, I went with maschler to le chabanais a much-hyped London restaurant operated by trendy freench chef inaki aziparte. The food was crap and maschler was Unentthusiastic in her review. When aa gill said much the same sort of thing, the restaurant closed.
So, The General View that Critics Always Eat Well is Wrong.
There is a second factor behind the time’s decision to shd the anonymity of its reviewers. The days when the only reviews that have been matched appeared in Mainstream Media are over. We are now bombarded with opinions about restaurants on social media. Many of these opinions are sincere even if they come from people who are not particularly known as knowledgeable about food. But many of them come from so-called influencers who are not bound by Through agencies that are paid to Secure social media publicity).
Over the year the share of Voice of PR Companies and the influencers they hire have grown to unprecedented levels. Many of these influencers then Vote in lists of great chefs or 50
Best restaurants. As a result, many restaurants have vast budgets dedicated to second Good Influence Reviews and Places on these lists. Chefs and restaurateurs know how the lists are compiled but they also know that a high position on any list will vastly increasing their business.
In such a situation, newspapers must hire the best critics who have written well food, undersrstand restaurants and will cut through the lying hype.
Such people do exist but they are rarely anonymous these days. They have appeared on food shows, have written and publicized books, have made their own videos and have social media profiles.
Once upon a time it was possible for the time to take saying, a relatively anonymous foreign correspondent who had just returned from as the restaurant critic.
You can’t do that any longer. You need experts with experience and some standing of their own to tell the world’s greensthest restaurants and the world’s best chefs what they are doing wrong. (Or right.)
Anonymity Works Well for Influencers You Have Never Heard of. But not for serial critics.
There is, of course, one exception to this general rule. Michelin is now a global organization. Its insurance are always anonymous even though they are rigorously trained and must eat at least 300 restaurant meals a year a year to keep track of trends and quality. Many Operate Internationally. If you run an Indian restaurant in Singapore you might be visited by an inspector from London.
Chefs try very hard to spot michelin inspectors but rarely successed mainly because all the clicks you hear about them are not true: they are available or Paris-BARISADAD, The NECSARILY EATE Alone, they do’t deliberately drop napkins on the floor to see how long it takes the servers to pick them up etc.
Michelin is now the last base of anonymous and independent reviewing. It Judges Quality and Consistency and Not Trendiness.
That’s why it’s the one recognition that chefs respect.
Let’s hope it stays that way.
