Who needs restaurant critics?

 
These days, anyone who can chew their food and type on a computer can review a restaurant. (Think I’m exaggerating? Have you looked at Yelp?) So where does that leave the professional? Is there still a need for an experienced critic who has eaten widely and well, pays for his or her own meals, and knows how to write a complete sentence? That’s what a panel argued at New York University last weekend. Francis Lam synopsizes it on Salon. Perhaps surprisingly, with a few very pointed exceptions, the readers who commented after the article may sound more positive than the critics themselves. What do you think?

-- Russ Parsons

Photo by Brian Hagiwara / Brand X / Corbis

Comments

[Sue-Ann Hansel]

Food critics do have some purpose in society. They can make or break a restaurant. While we may all have different likes with regards to what we consume, food critics give the general public an idea of the delicacies that exist in the world. Delicacies that we may want to try someday.

[Pasqual Franqueza]

It's very interesting the comparison, food critic vs. food yelpper (for instance), and like most things both could serve a purpose and have their flops.

I have a restaurant representing the food of Spain, LA Paella, for over 14 years. Irene Virbila, whom I read and respect as a food critic, wrote January 6 "Stars[her rating system] reflect a restaurant's ambitions and how well it fulfills them.". I believe that to be a fair aproach. And I'm waiting for her to stop by.

In over 14 years Ms. Virbila nor J. Gold have never wrote about us and we are considered to be one of the most authentic representation and we try to do it in a non pretentious environment. Many people(customers) still ask us why don't people know about us and we are 100 feet from José André's place(Bazaar) on the restaurant row. On the other hand, we had many calls from the Yelp people congratulating us for our popularity. Yes, there are those internet users that wright about restaurants and they use it as a weapon either to favor or to hurt, but they may fill a need since they are themselves the consumers. Unlike other food critics that would ask me for a free experience in exchange for a colum. Avoiding an important part of the dining experience.

Thanks for the opportunity.
Sincerely,

Pasqual Franqueza
LA Paella
Los Angeles, CA

[Matt Schantz]

Of course there's a difference between a critic hobbyist and someone who does it for a living.

[David Slay]

Let me say first hand that I have experienced the power of the printed press as well yelp and others.

Although I have high regards for the opinion of guests who dine with us no review has been as powerful as the printed review. After our Los Angeles Times review by Ms. Virbila our business increased forty percent over night.

It then is up to our staff to maintain the "new guest" and keep them coming back.

David Slay
Park Ave. Restaurant
Stanton, CA

[Tracy Flinders]

Some of us agree with the Pulitzer people--we just like good writing.

[Stacy]

Well, the LAT ditched Charlie Perry, who was probably the most knowledgeable food writer in the country. So, evidently, readers don't really care.

Once you know the food critic's little quirks-- J. Gold likes any place weird, S. Irene coddles earnest beginners--you can read the review with a grain of salt, so to speak, and make your own choices.

[lisa]

Yes, we still need food critics! While the Average Joe can chew and write, his pallette may not be refined and able to hone in on the delicate balance between "decent" versus GOOD. So, some of us would want an experienced writer (and his/her pallette) to discern this for us. You have tasted the best of the best, and the worst of the worst. We look up to you in praise and respect (and to not see the words "yummy" or "delish" stem from your pen).