Must wine bar threatens local blog Eater LA with legal action after negative post

Restaurateurs have long voiced their displeasure at negative comments left by anonymous diners on sites such as Yelp. But what happens when a site runs negative -- and potentially defamatory -- comments from anonymous tipsters under the guise of news?

A blind item about the Must wine bar in downtown L.A. has left the restaurant's co-owners, Coly Den Haan and Rachel Thomas, angry enough to threaten local dining blog Eater LA with legal action.

Today the blog ran an item asserting that the Must falsely advertised items on its menu and, perhaps more crucially, threatened diners' health with poor sanitation and food safety. Their source? An anonymous tipster.

"Cheese plates are not as advertised - Double Glouster Chedder, Explorateur Triple Cream Brie, Point Reyes, etc. are all in fact US Foods low-budget generic. You are paying $15 for $4 worth of generic cheese... House Made Peanut Butter is US Foods Generic... Besides not adhering to simple food saftey standards, such as soap, sanitizing, and throwing out chicken salad that's 2 weeks old, 90% of all 'fresh' menu items are cooked days beforehand and sit in the fridge, including all vegetables; even the ones that would take 5 minutes to cook per order." (19:59:27 UTC)

"Those accusations are completely false and we have receipts to prove it," says Den Haan.

"We do order from U.S. Foods. We order janitorial supplies and cayenne pepper and a few things like that from them," Thomas says. "We don’t order any cheese from them. We don’t order any meat, poultry or seafood from them. Most of our produce and cheese we can't get from them. There's no such thing as a cheap imitation Humboldt fog, so it doesn’t even make sense."

Thomas and Den Haan contacted a lawyer and sent an email to Eater LA, part of the Curbed network of blogs, asking them to remove the post.

"I got a response from them saying that they would like to post our side of the story and that they were willing to remove the direct quote from their source, but that's all they could do. They wouldn’t recant anything or make a formal apology," Thomas says.

"We honestly don’t want to post anything on their website. We're so disgusted by what they’ve done. I do think there should be some repercussions as to what people can post as factual," Den Haan says. 

Haan raises a crucial point: In an era when anyone can become a publisher with a few mouse clicks, what responsibility do blogs, especially well-established blogs with a sizable readership, have when they run unsourced information? Slander and defamation are tricky charges to prove, but somewhere in the gap between what's legally actionable and what's expedient is the issue of what's ethical.

"I think they definitely know they’ve done something pretty darn wrong," Den Haan says. Eater LA's readers seem to agree. Shortly after 6 p.m. this evening, the post had generated 60 comments, most of them critical of the website for running the post. 

Stay tuned as we try to get Eater LA's side of the story.

-- Elina Shatkin 

Photo: Screen grab of Eater LA website taken by Elina Shatkin

Comments

[los angeles seo]

I actually like The Must. So, should I care where they get the food or what it originally cost? My girlfriend's blackberry phone is from Mexico and China. Do you think it has $400 worth of parts?

I don't belive the Must serves anything but what they say. Try it. Blogs are opinons. Go make yours.

[SeanB]

I've never heard of the The Must but quite frankly after reading about this issue on LA Observed and in this blog, I want to go there and try the food. It sounds good. What's the old saying, "Even bad press is good press."

[Elina Shatkin]

Rusty:

Actually, there are two significant differences between this post and the Eater LA post.
1. I contacted Eater LA editor Kat Odell and asked her to comment. Twice. She has so far declined.
2. I quoted named sources not an anonymous tipster.

--Elina

[Rusty Kaye]

Do I have this straight? The obvious problem here, the sure sign of lacking professionalism, is that the blog published a report about the restaurant without asking the restaurant for its side to include in the report, and we learn about this in an LAT Blog that concludes, "Stay tuned as we try to get Eater LA's side of the story."

Harrumph, indeed. Pot, meet Kettle. kettle, this is Pot.

[kneejerk]

Robin Garr- Woodward and Bernstein calling on line two...

[JoeM]

This is the exact reason why the world will never take blogs truly seriously. The food blogs are rife with people who lack professionalism and have zero experience in any capacity -- with food or business.

We do not even acknowledge blogs for this reason.

[William McGuinness]

It sounds crazy to my parents that I'm currently paying for a degree in journalism, but situations like these prove that truth is grounded in ethics. Blogs are valuable for their readers' contributions and energy; however, those who run the blogs should use equal energy to ensure that those contributors are actually serving their peers -- not devaluing the site. It's just responsible.

[Colleen]

Yes, Must Wine Bar should respond to Eater LA, but I can see why they don't want to -- it just validates a site that is making no attempt to put the hard work into posting honest, useful content. They're just about re-posting everyone's else's reporting and passing on celebrity sightings and gossip. If Daily Dish, Squid Ink, Eating LA, EAT LA and the dozens of heartfelt indie food bloggers didn't work hard to produce content that EaterLA could link to, they wouldn't have much on the site.

[MrSato]

I agree with Robin. When I post something on my blogs or as a comment on someone else's blog (just like here), I don't mind being accountable. I am not afraid to say what I really think either, but I'm also honest. On my wine blog I've criticized professional critics, and have heard from those critics.

Eater LA should require "tipsters'" identity to be disclosed. It keeps people honest, and allows readers to judge the credibility of the material.

On the flip side, I think Must Wine Bar should just counter on Eater LA (which I subscribe to). Forget that you might actually be helping who you perceive to be the bad guy, look out for yourselves. It is one great thing about blogs - that you can counter attacks directly to the audience who first read them. If you don't, many people will just believe the blogger.

[Sara]

Sounds like an ex-employee spilling the beans and exposing the truth about their restaurant. Its not wrong to protect your reputation, but if there is no truth to the blog post, and your restaurant is good, than you should be able to stand on your own; unfettered and prosperous.

[Robin Garr]

The real issue is anonymity. Blogs (and newspapers) should not allow posters to snipe from behind cover. Critical reviews are legitimate, but only if the critic identifies himself or herself. The blog erred not in publishing the criticism but by allowing it to be done anonymously.

[Pat]

I once got a tip from a friend that his friend had found a bird -- that's right, an ENTIRE bird -- in her salad at an outdoor patio restaurant. I could have posted it, because who doesn't love a good bird-in-the-salad story. But I didn't, because it's not cool to do stuff like that.