The oft maligned Tom Hurley of Hurley’s is opening Coupage in Seattle. It’s going to be a (brace yourself) French-Korean restaurant in Seattle’s Madrona neighborhood. The Portland restaurant will remain, though I hear rumors of a new menu. He’ll shuttle back and forth between the two locations. Hmm.
______________________________________________
One of Portland’s favorite coffee roasters has left the building. The roaster at Blue Gardenia on N. Mississippi has split from the partnership. No word on a replacement.
______________________________________________
Francis at 23rd and Alberta is set to open at the start of November. The mid-to-upscale breakfast and lunch spot already has the menu posted on the window with a caveat that it is, “a work in progress.” Francis will serve standard Portland breakfast fare such as a signature Benedict, build your own omelets, etc. Lunches include a variety of soups, sandwiches, and other comfort food. How many breakfast places can Alberta Street absorb anyway?
______________________________________________
The Tea-Zone in the Pearl is expanding to, in their words, “a swank cocktail bar.” It is an unusual space, so this should be interesting.
Judging from the wait at Helser’s, at least a couple more.
Serious question here for those in the industry: do the economics of a breakfast place demand that if there’s not a 45 minute wait at all times on weekends, that it will not succeed financially? The crowds at Utopia, Cricket Cafe, Cadillac Cafe, Milo’s, Helser’s, Bijou, Zell’s, would imply that the Portland breakfast market is dramatically underserved…
Graze rakes the Mercury over the coals.
Wow, did anyone see the letter from the executive chef of Graze in yesterday’s Mercury regarding the Merc’s ho-hum review of the place? It’s pretty damn funny.
Graze Letter
That’s one seriously pissed off chef.
Wow.. We are going to have a Graze review really soon. I wonder how ours will compare.
She needs to take a lesson from Naomi on grace and humility. That letter has certainly turned me off of Graze, more than the original review did.
Graze Letter: Yes, her response came up at lunch today and was quite the topic among us communications, PR, marketing, and outreach types.
My dining companion who is a marketing expert, sadly shook his head, and stated what the rest of us were thinking: The Graze chef probably just did more damange to her restaurant with that letter than several bad reviews in a row could ever do. Although, I have to give her credit, the lady chef has balls.
And I think she is really courting trouble. I mean, “I dare anybody to find a better four-course meal for $40 in the Pearl.”
Um, ok, I bet a lot of people will take you up on that dare. I just hope she can handle the response. I mean, is she going to write a nasty letter every time someone doesn’t like Graze?
Graze Letter: I’ve had several chefs write and ask what they should do about negative comments and whatnot. I always tell them to “Stay off of the internet and do the best they can”, or if they read them, say something like “we appreciate your comments and are working to address them”. They’ll win a lot of people over with the latter. There are a few chefs around town, I think the one at Epicure is one example, who really blew it that way… and is no longer in business.
4 small plates is not a four-course meal.
Perhaps Graze’s chef/owner was overtired from those 100-hour workweeks — and thus not thinking clearly — when she decided to write that letter to the Mercury. As a wise man (I forget who , exactly) once said: Never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
I learned years ago, when I was really pissed off, write a scathing email, and then sit on it for 24 hours. If I still want to send it, wait another 24. It’s worked well for me… most of the time I get it out of my system and never send it. Nancy saved me from doing that just today.
Oh, this is priceless.
I went over to the Merc’s site, & read the letter.
Then I clicked over to their Blogtown section.
What’s sitting on top? A large banner ad for Graze….
Guess she didn’t get around to pulling her advertising. Or perhaps there’s a poorly-executed spin going on…?
The questionable wisdom of her letter aside, I will say Graze’s owner did make some valid points in her complaint to the Mercury: A lot of Portlanders — and the alternative media especially — do seem to revel in Pearl-bashing. And a critic who complains, in late 2006, about a Pearl restaurant being expensive? Well, duh. The Pearl IS the most upscale part of Portland. Of course things are more costly there, as they are in the most upscale parts of every city everywhere. (The Portland Tribune’s bar critic complained about the prices at several Pearl establishments today too.) Can’t we just accept that as a given by now and move on? (What’s with these Portland critics and prices anyway; are they reviewing all these places on their own dime?)
I think there are a lot of pissant restaurant reviewers in this city. I think there is at least one ‘ho restaurant reviewer in this city. I think Roger Porter used to have some integrity before he went to the O’.
I read both the review and the letter. The review was b.s. and the reviewer looks like an idiot to me. Bitching about a small plate restaurant that actually serves food on small plates is inane.
Given (former city commissioner) Charles Jordan’s famous line “My momma taught me to never get into a pissing contest with a skunk”, the owner/chef of Graze would have been better off ignoring this because it it was it is, the prattle of someone who would like to think they are more cool than they are.
Well, not to be an ageist or anything, but I think Alison is about 23 years old. The Mercury pays pennies to the dollar, and it’s not surprising to have people fresh out of college doing their writing (and drinking) for them. You might see someone from the Merc write about fashion, food, and politics all in the same issue. Unfortunate that it affects such an extremely expensive venture.
Chambolle, I was about to say the same thing. In addition, I don’t think their demographic is going to be particularly interested in Graze either way. As a matter of fact, if the chef hadn’t written that letter, it probably wouldn’t have affected them at all.
Cognos2000: I still think Roger has as much integrity as he ever did; IMHO he writes the best food reviews in the city. What gripes me is the overall grade – over which I have a feeling he has no control.
How can they rip a restaurant like that, and then give it a C ! To me, that gives the O no credibility.
FD,
I wholeheartedly agree with you reagrding Roger Porter. I enjoy his reviews, and his turn of a phrase. His review of Gracie’s (though unfortunate for them) was spot-on and very entertaining. Sad (as you pointed out) that the “O” felt obliged to dole out a C grade. It was a D review if ever there was one. Sadder still is the absence of the Mallory. I miss having breakfast there.
Speaking of Portland institutions… I was told by someone the other day that Yaw’s Top Notch (the venerable, but long since departed Hollywood District restaurant) is returning is a similar incarnation. For your readership of a certain age, who grew up in Portland, this is a fun bit of news.
Saw the Merc review. Didnt’ see the letter.
I have visited Graze several times and here’s the straight poop. A few of the dishes have been stellar. It has been a couple weeks, but the mushroom crepe was in that category. Thin, light crepes filled with matsutakes tickled my taste buds both times I tried them. Most of the dishes are average. A few were truly regrettable. The most prominent example was the chicken skewers with hazelnut sauce. The overall impression is of a dish as gray and gloomy as the lead curtain Portland sky today. The sauce was dull and unidimensional. One would think that if the chef is riffing on an Asian peanut sauce, the thought would have occurred to add sweet and/or spicy elements or something to give the sauce a little whoppee. No luck here.
As for the review, the focus on prices at a Pearl District (or any high rent) establishment was dopey. It’s like complaining about the proliferation of fast food joints and automotive establishments along 99W in Tigard or T-V Highway in Beaverton. Pointless verbiage. Whether you are fresh out of college or not, or receiving horrible pay as is common, fuzzy thinking is fuzzy thinking. Reviews should focus primarily on the food, secondarily on service, decor/atmosphere, and only then on value or anything else that is particularly notable, either thumbs up or down. If the Merc reviewer isn’t getting reimbursed for her meals, in addition to her meager pay, she is getting reamed.
The Dude has already echoed the advice I tend to give. When you are in a public service trade, mixing it up publicly has no upside. One can understand the chef’s frustration. The place has been dead every time I have walked or driven by or been in. Bitching about a bad review, however, is an exercise in futility even if the reviewer is woefully off the mark.
–mcz
P.S.: Roger is great no matter where (or what) he writes. Also, in my biased opinion, the food coverage at the “O” has improved a lot overall in the last several months. But, again, I’m biased.
Well, I was going to go back to Graze for breakfast for a second time. We went two weeks ago on a Saturday. When we walked in this past Sat., the guy at the bar was pretty rude and informed us they were closed and they never served breakfast on Saturday. WTF, they did two weeks before? We ended up at Mothers where the service and food was quite good.
I think the Oregonian’s editorial standards have always been shoddy and influenced by $$ more than intregity, and this goes way beyond food reviews. Writing for the O. takes R. Porter down a notch in my eyes. And I just don’t always get his palate. I just don’t always like or dislike what he does.
As for the Merc, well, why bother reviewing places that are outside the demographic of your readership? Just another sign that Portland is a cultural backwater …. no real journalism here.
coupage isn’t tom hurley’s gig, per se. he owns the place, but its chefs are rachel & safe… well known hurley-ites & wildly talented chefs. they are engaged, and in fact met while cooking for alain ducasse. their resumes also include stints with thomas keller & numerous other big names.
having tasted the food, i can say that this place should kick quite a lot of ass. while french & korean don’t sound like the most natural pairing, the food is outstanding.
I think the Oregonian’s editorial standards have always been shoddy and influenced by $$ more than intregity, and this goes way beyond food reviews. Writing for the O. takes R. Porter down a notch in my eyes. And I just don’t always get his palate. I just don’t always like or dislike what he does.
What cheap shot this is. First, let’s stick to food. Second, do you have any actual evidence to support your “$$ more than integrity” theory beyond your disagreement with food writers’ opinions? Payoffs? Better treatment of restaurants that advertise? C’mon let’s have some examples, or is your “I think” simply bald conjecture as I suspect.
My full disclosure, since integrity is critically important to me: I have been freelancing as food writer for the “O” for close to a year. In my work and the work of other writers, both staff and freelancers I know, you eat (multiple times), you form your opinions and you write. Agree or disagree, fine. But there are no nefarious influences.
As far as what gets written about, the main reviews are generally of the same places as are written about here on pf&d and elsewhere–newer places and interesting places that have been around for a while. That should be pretty obvious. My stuff is generally proposed by me based on my experience or what I hear, then approved by an editor. Rarely, do I get a thumbs down and then only because someone else at the “O” is writing about the same place or it has been written about previously.
Sorry you don’t always “get” Roger’s palate. I don’t either. That’s because so much about food writing, like taste itself, is subjective. What I do get is that Roger and the other food writers and editors at the “O” don’t merit scorn for lack of integrity unless you have some proof to back up your opinion.
–mcz
As an example of what c2000 might be talking about re: $/treatment. Our place has been open for 13 months and its existence has yet to be mentioned once in the Merc or WWeek. We did place an ad one time with the Oregonian and they did a very nice piece on us. We cannot yet afford regular print advertising, as an astonishing amount of places can. Buying advertising is an announcement that people hear, though it is certainly not the only thing that works.
Personally, I don’t know the point in going after someone’s integrity in these instances. Isn’t it enough to challenge them on the explicit merits? (Save those for Mark Foley and Harry Reid.) I’ve actually seen an improvement in the Oregonian’s focus of late and I’ve been suspicious of the source. I think that the blogs and food forums may be having their influence. There aren’t just the articles you’re writing mcz, but the Korean explorations, eg. Apparently you don’t have to be a million dollar restaurant with a wine list or located downtown, in the Pearl, or Near-in NE/SE anymore. Good for them.
Chambolle: But don’t you think your place merited the favorable attention? Were there others similarly situated that you think should have received attention but didn’t b/c they didn’t advertise?
–mcz
Shrewdly worded question, mcz. But what I was saying had less to do with the O and more to do with the weeklies. c2000 made a point on both the Merc and the O. I think you are more concerned with defending the O; we agree entirely, by the way, on Roger Porter.
I was once a newspaper publisher; sat on boards with some Oregonian editors in fact. To suggest that they are swayed by advertising of restaurants is so preposterous it doesn’t really deserve a response. It shows a complete ignorance of the industry, and ignores completely the huge resources in the paper. Macy’s in a week brings more dollars to the O than all the restaurant advertising in six months. One car dealer is worth more than all the A & E each year; have you seen favorable piece in Living on Ron Tonkin? Your comments are unfounded, insulting to journalists and to the intelligence of us all. If you believe such silliness you have never seen the bottom line/revenue flow of a any newspaper. Once you start favoring the advertisers you lose your readers because where does it end? With constant puff pieces? Enough already.
I would not say that the O is swayed by $$. However, i really feel that the the editorial has an agenda. Their “integrity” has up and downs, and it’s obvious that they have favorite “trends” and do not review objectively. However, I’ll say that there is definitly a change with R. Porter coming on board. I always felt that his reviews have integrity and that he doesn’t follow an agenda. You can agree or not with him, but he is consistent. My biggest hope is that he’ll stay like that. I guess we’ll find out in the next Restaurant Guide.
But in any case, as long as K. Brooks will remain the editor, she will still do her best to create trends and follow her agenda to push certain places with the help of G. Butler and D. Sarasohn. I hope Roger will not meet them there.
You are right; just look at the fawning over chef Israel et. al. But personal connections color any business relationship and journalism is no different. However, to suggest that advertising dollars make the difference is just inane. I, for one, am sick of the celebrity chef coverage. While things have gotten better in that regard, last week’s lovefest interview for the new 23 Hoyt was nauseating.
I will stick by my comments about the Oregonian’s lack of integrity. And only someone associated with the O is going to say what I say next is a cheap shot.
There’s several commonly known stories and some only known by insiders.
The O failed to break the Packwood story before the election. The Washington Post had to do that for us.
The O used to fail to run “offensive” (to advertisers) Doonesbury cartoons.
Now for the lessor known stuff. The O failed to run a story about an injury producing drunken drivent accident by Oregon’s then senior US senator’s wife. The O did not print a story it had in the ’80s regarding sex abuse by a Roman Catholic priest. That story came out a lot more recently. The O did not print a story it had about drug dealing out of one of metro’s large car chain dealerships, also in the 80s. And all of this was not to offend certain large advertisers or so it was explained to me.
The O probably failed to use any information it had on former mayor Goldschmidt.
If you think these incidents are indicative of integrity, I’d hate to think of what your standards are.
You can also go through back issues of WWeek in the 80s and 90s where WWeek used to chastize the O routinely for not breaking stories.
Now on to food, it’s pretty disgusting that the main qualification for the O’s restaurnat of the year award is to be a good friend of Karen Brooks.
So here’s to the O’s lack of integrity.
Whims at Nostrana? Is this one year your only claim for Brooks’ alleged whoredom, or are you going to claim she’s buds with Villaran, Brownlow, Paley, Israel, Schreiber, Laslow, and the rest of the winners?
Both Food Dude and I said that we liked the place. Who are we sleeping with? Roger Porter in his WW review said of it: “Fancy is not better. But a restaurant like Nostrana, whose dishes express the culture of a people and their tradition, is.” Hey, maybe that’s why he got that O job. Perhaps Whims has given a lap dance to every critic in town.
Is it just that she is allegedly friends with the chef? If I say that LOW BBQ has the best BBQ in town, does that mean I lack integrity just because I’m friends and partners with Ken Gordon?
So did she strong-arm the other reviewers who had a part in voting for Nostrana? Or are they friends of Whims, too — a ROY cabal? Is it a conspiracy over there?
Or is the real issue that you disagree with Brooks and that you find it difficult to see reason in those you disagree with, making them either delusional or liars?
I agree with cognos2000.
The Oregonian is a piece of trash that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The only purpose for it is to line my birdcage.
This is a paper that got scooped by the Willamette Week for the Pulitzer in regards to the whole sordid Goldschmidt story because it refused to dig into the facts. What kind of journalistic integrity is that?
Oh yeah, and look what they found in the New York Times. Macy’s (big Oregonian account) apparently advertised T-shirts promoting drinking and drinking games in the back-to-school section, i.e., “Beer Pong”. Leave it to the O to ignore the story but the freaking New York Times and Blue Oregon to pick it up. How’s that for journalistic or editorial integrity???
Yup, that hotbed of journalistic and editorial integrity, the Oregonian has done it again.
Read this from the New York Times of all places. You think because Macy’s is the major advertiser for the Oregonian had nothing to do with this story being buried? I’ve got a bridge to sell you…
Brooks has known Whims personally for a long time. Brooks is also friends with the Paleys. Brooks is probably too close to a lot of restaurant people to be objective and she would do better to leave the choice of ROY to someone other than herself. Writing a food/restaurant gossip column would be a fair thing for her to do.
Journalists, like lawyers, in fact have a higher standard (and there are true standards) of ethics than food bloggers who are held to no standards. Unfortunately, at least with journalists the concept of standards of ethics are falling by the wayside. Hence we see scandal after scandal with the media not playing straight. That runs from the NY Times to CBS to local media.
Whether or not I disagree with Brooks (and I have not always disagreed with Brooks) is irrelevant to the concept of ethical journalistic behavior. I believe you can Google and find materials on what is considered appropriate behavior for restaurant reviewers.
Though I don’t believe the editorializing regarding the history of Oregonian follies is necessary, neither is hyperbole or faulty comparisons. The question does remain, what was the O thinking. CL was given the crown just after opening (perhaps before opening) and simply put Nostrana is undeserving, whether you “like” it or not. Restaurant of the year?
Perhaps it all comes down to the inherent subjectivity of “critiquing” food…..but we’ve been there already.
MSG — My answer is no, because you fully disclose your relationship with him (and I’ve never had any reason to question your motives.) But if Ken starts giving you lap dances, I expect you to let us know.
So if I start writing reviews under my real name, can I expect lap dances? How do I explain this perk to my wife?
No one has offered me a lap dance so far. This is probably a good thing.
–mcz
MSG: I resent that remark. I’ve slept in almost every restaurant in town, but especially at Nostrana where the wait for service can be glacial.
“Hi, I’m Food Dude” wink wink, nudge nudge. “I sure am tired!”
Here’s the thing: who you know, who you don’t know, where your brother, mother, sister, lover works, etc, etc, are all red herrings. The review is there in print. It can be critiqued, it can be tested. So why resort to name-calling and personal attacks against persons you don’t know well enough to judge? It’s the sort of thing that should rightly be relegated to the supermarket checkout counter along with alien babies and Jen’s latest boob job.
I think that the history of the O’s unethical behavior establishes a pattern of how that newspaper operates. I am not sure how facts become confused with editorializing either.
Now back to food reviewers and their ethics……
Here’s some accepted guidelines….
http://www.afjonline.com/rcrit.htm
Brooks cannot be an anonymous review with Whims, the Paleys and many others. She should have taken a cue from Matt Kramer when he wrote for WWeek. No restaurant owner had a clue what he looked like back them and several offered money for photos.
While I don’t agree with a lot of what Hunter writes above, I do agree that a restaurant should be in business for at least one full year before it gets ROY.
Brooks also wears two hats with her editorial duties.
My standards are probably a lot more stringent than these but I believe in higher standards.
And the O also has a freelance reviewer who has clients in the restaurant industry but that fact is not made clear in his by-line. I think that there’s a huge potential for conflict of interest and that most of the million plus in the metro area have no idea that this reviewer has clients in the restaurant industury. If the O chooses to let him review, then their readership should know all the facts in his by-line. I guess full disclosure is not something the O regards as important. I will hold Brooks responsible for the fact this is omitted from his by-line.
Any restaurant operator will tell you that there is a strong correlation between a review and the level of business a restaurant will see stemming from that review for the few weeks following its publication. It is a blessing even when the review is mediocre.
Small articles, notes, mentions and just your restaurant’s name dotting the pages year-round will keep your restaurant top of mind, to speak PR-ish. Multiply that manifold for the Restaurant of the Year and the Dining Guide issues we see.
Flip that, and see how being ignored by the local press will keep you away from the public’s mind.
This is vital for a young enterprise, even when it has a veteran owner or chef, because initially, when the stakes are highest, you need all the support you can get.
When you always see the same names over and over in the restaurant columns, you know their business is being supported heavily.
What is relevaant, in the industry and for the local economy, is that there is a strong financial consequence to the wit of the local food writers. They know it, while the general dining public remains oblivious to it.
In a town this size and with the “critics” going around flaunting their profession, asking to disclose certain ties is quite a needless excercise. The oblivious readership will keep disregarding, while the attentive and informed should be able to understand all of this just reading critically what is under everyone’s eyes.
Taking the ethical high ground is admirable, but the reality is so imperfect… Some restaurants just have friends in the right places. Live with it, ’cause it ain’t changing!
Luca,
I drove by your old space today for the first time in a long while and was sadly reminded of exactly what you say above. I miss your food and wish your adventure turned out differently.
MR
Luca, change is always a possibility but it takes people being mad as hell or just fed up and not being willing to take it any more (yeah, yeah… NETWORK was a great flick). And speaking up and showing things for what they are and trying to point out the b.s. is one way to get change. I don’t accept that the O even really should be considered as more than a yellow rag. But news on paper now has a limited life span anyway. And blogs and websites free of commercial interference are going to usurp a lot of rags as sources of information.
Cognos, you talk about the newspaper naively as some monolithic entity, like right-wingers talk about “the media” and left-wingers talk about “Fox News” or “talk radio”. I think you’d find that there’s a lot less communication between the sections and a lot less that filters from the management to the writers than your conspiratorial view of “the O” requires.
Have you ever thought that perhaps Karen Brooks and other food writers in this town just feel passionate and are interested in the things they write about? I’ve heard some complaining about, eg, the big platter write-up for the Balvo reincarnation here and there. Instead of nefarious explanations, why not assume the more likely explanation that Karen Brooks is interested and excited about the change and that she thinks her readers will be as well?
Interestingly, I got an email while I was out making bagels with the unnamed Oregonian writer above from someone close to Karen Brooks who told me that she’s not even friends with Whims, that the closest she’s been to her was an interview. So who’s going to fit into the third point of your evil triad now? What machinations, what loose connections, what assumed evidence will unfold to explain this one? Maybe I’m a stooge for the Oregonian. I’ve eaten dinner with one of its freelance writers. I’m sucking up to Brooks because she wrote a positive platter story on Kenny & Zuke’s.
And what’s up with this BS about challenging the “unnamed freelancer”‘s integrity. Are you claiming that he has Banh Cuon Tan Dinh, Malay Satay Hut, or Ulicious as clients? This is why this is a total red herring. Don’t make accusations, even if only implied, without facts to back them up. Or perhaps you want the byline to be followed by:
“This guy’s a lawyer. Some of his clients are restaurants. None of them are who he’s reviewing, but we thought we’d let you know because useless and misleading information is good for gossip.”
Why aren’t you calling on Food Dude to reveal himself, perhaps publish his family tree and those he’s ever worked with to make sure he has no hidden cousin that tends bar at Alberta Street or Siam Society? You know, Nancy Romelmann is his friend. She has written for “the O”. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Know what I mean, know what I mean? AND… she has an interest in a local coffee roaster. Perhaps Food Dude gives an ultimatum to those he’s reviewing: buy Ristretto coffee or suffer a bad review. I think we’ve just found the explanation for the Carlyle Review.
Why not stick to the f’n facts. Quit pretending you know the heart and mind of someone you probably haven’t even met. Quit letting suspicion and conjecture infect you. Believing in and arguing for anonymous reviewing is one thing, but you’ve gone far beyond that, calling writers whores and implying that they are for sale or doling out favors.
Critique opinions and reporting on their merits and save the personal garbage for Thanksgiving dinner with the family, where it traditionally belongs.
Luca, change is always a possibility but it takes people being mad as hell or just fed up and not being willing to take it any more (yeah, yeah… NETWORK was a great flick). And speaking up and showing things for what they are and trying to point out the b.s. is one way to get change.
Ironic: that’s what got me fired. Yet again.
Luca,
Maybe I’m one of those members of the “oblivious readership”. I have no ties to the restaurant business or to the journalistic community. The presumption I have (naive me) is that journalists and food reviewers are going to be as impartial as possible. That would mean food reviewers should have no ties to the restaurants or if they do, they should disclose them. Obviously, many of you on this blog have ties to the restaurant business or are insiders. Sadly, I have no “insider information”.
MSG: I have no idea why, but it seems Askimet sends your comments to the spam filter every time. I’m wondering if you are on their list.
SnarfBunny, just to make it clear, I have no ties to anyone in the restaurant business in Portland. I’ve never worked for or at a restaurant in Portland. I don’t currently have any close friends or family, distant or related, working in a restaurant in Portland. If I did, I wouldn’t review the restaurant as long as they were associated with it. I prefer paper, not plastic ;) This disclaimer brought to you by Food Dude.
Can we all just get along?
I sincerely doubt that Brooks’ only contact with Whims was one interview for the O regarding Nostrana. Maybe you can explain how Brooks would have a number of Whims’ recipes in the cookbook Brooks editted in the 90s when she was still with WWeek without knowing Whims or having only interviewed her once recently. I find that implausible. If you read the cookbook it sounds like Brooks did get to know some of the chefs whose recipes appear in it. It would appear to be a fact that Brooks has had more contact with Whims than your post says.
Brooks has most certainly been in one or more commerical kitchens in Portland. Now that’s not anonymous either.
I am also tired of Brooks retreading her this is the restautant the brought glory to Porland by using local ingredients. She started with that in the 90s and how can it be that something that was already done by Indigne and others now be happening again? Please how about some originality out of Brooks?
What do you think conflict of interest means ExtraMSG? Even if the lawyer reviews restaurants that aren’t his clients there are potential issues. I believe the old Oregon bar cannons had a phrase about “avoiding the appearance of impropriety” when discussing conflict of interest. It’s a good phrase. I don’t understand why you think its a problem for him to disclose his affliations in his byline. It allows for caveat emptor.
You, ExtraMSG, cannot separate your personal friendship with this reviewer with the concept of a journalistic cannon of ethics. Ethics are objective. Your friendship makes you subjective.
I don’t care about Brooks’ gossip column where she discusses the new place in the old Balvo space. More power to Brooks for the gossip but I think little of her reviewing these days.
MSG you seem to think I have some agenda here. I don’t. You on the other hand seem to think anything goes and everyone should do whatever they want with no standards. There are reasons for these ethics and standards even if they rub you the wrong way.
FoodDude is not part of a media enterprise like Gannet so it’s not like he has much power or credibility. And for you to suggest that a chain newspaper is equal to a single individual is ludicrious which you know.
We are never going to agree about ethics or a lot of other values and I am done debating you. I am not done speaking my mind about the garbage pile known as the O.
“If I say that LOW BBQ has the best BBQ in town, does that mean I lack integrity just because I’m friends and partners with Ken Gordon?”
“I’m sucking up to Brooks because she wrote a positive platter story on Kenny & Zuke’s.”
I think you’ll find a number of people around town who would say yes, and the fact that you’re at your shrillest everytime it pops up is proof enough.
Could you please expand on your vague pronoun reference. What is “it”?
The thing that is strangest to me about all of this, is that Karen Brooks is a really nice person who, even if she weren’t a reviewer, would be friends with restaurant owners and staff. I waited on her a few times before I, or anyone else I was working with, knew who she was. She exudes a calm appreciation of the experience that she is having. As a server, that sort of attitude made me want to have everything perfect for her sake, regardless of who she was. Unlike some customers I’ve served, she seemed open to the idea that she might possibly have the best meal of her life on any given night, in whatever venue. Yes, she knows a lot of industry people, but I think that it is because she is curious and open to finding a good dining experience. mczlaw is the same way. I had no idea he wrote for the Oregonian or that he was “the man behind the handle” until a few days ago, but every time I have cooked for him or waited on him I have wanted to make his experience perfect, simply from his grace.
Damn, now I look like I am defending a publication that prides itself on being “the best 15 minutes of my day.”
MR
Well, if you doubt it, Nick, it must be true. Supposition is not the same as evidence. If it’s the book I’m thinking of, I bet the gathering process went something like what I’ve done before in similar circumstances: send out a bunch of letters to those you’d like to submit entries for the compilation and hope you get something good back. If that’s what it takes to poison the well, then the Oregonian is suspect for every recipe it published from a local chef in FoodDay. Is that really all you got? No photos of them BBQ-ing in the back yard, passing a folded envelope under the table. 15 years ago, Karen Brooks published a compilation of recipes, some of which came from Cathy Whims? Really, that’s what you’re going with?
Then who DOESN’T have “potential” problems? A restaurant could call me up tomorrow and ask me to fix their computer network or develop a website for them. They could offer to hire your SO. The owner of a restaurant could be the person to buy your house or your car. None of us are “clean”. We live in a community, not a bubble. We have relationships and interact. You’re looking for some ideal that’s not possible — and frankly, unneccessary. You’ve given no evidence whatsoever that Zusman (or Brooks) has published anything but their honest opinions. Instead, you try to discount their opinions on the bases that they have conflicts of interest that apparently don’t even exist. I’m worried about actual problems, not potential problems.
First of all, I’ve been very consistent on this issue. I couldn’t tell Karen Brooks from Food Dude (ironically, she wrote a book called Dude Food. Coincidence? I think not!) I’ve been making this case long before I met Zusman. I made a similar case in defense of Jim Dixon over the salt thing.
Again, you go with supposition instead of evidence. You say, in essence, “There MUST be something influencing him. He disagrees with me. Only an unreasonable person would disagree with me unless there is some outside influence clouding his judgment.” Because you’re the objective one, right? Everyone else can only hope to aspire to your level of reasonableness. Who art thou, Ayn Rand? Evidence, evidence, evidence.
Can you please put in an order for an ethicometer. I could really use one. An instant read ethicometer would be especially nice. That way I could more quickly decide whether a choice I make is ethical or not. Personally I was always under the impression that my being a subject made me subjective, but apparently I just needed to have fewer friends and get me an ethicometer.
You know there’s a difference between the appearance of impropriety and impropriety itself, right? You’re alleging impropriety. And an “appearance” is in the eye of the beholder. It’s a smart guideline for the person’s own sake, but it has little to do with truth.
I’m not saying you have an agenda. I’m saying that you’re wrong, your logic is faulty, and that you’re basing your opinions on assumptions rather than evidence.
Yeah, wooohooooo, anything goes! Orgies and heroin at the A&E staff meeting. Bring in the freaks and whores! Too much hyperbole? But I thought it fit so neatly with your comment.
I’ve made two claims: 1) that your standards go beyond what is meaningful in reviewing restaurants, and 2) that those you accuse of violating your professed standards do not actually violate them. Again, you offer conclusions without premises, judgments without evidence.
Ouch. Hey FD maybe if you and I combine forces and get bought out by Google we can have a shred of credibility, since apparently it comes with the size of your bankroll. (Which would suggest KB et al would have the MOST credibility in town. I’m so confused!)
Gee MSG. Orgies? Whores! Hyperbole? No wonder the system thinks you are a spammer;>)
Careful, with suggestions like that, they are going to figure out that you and I are the same person.
For the record, I never knew Karen Brooks had written any books. I’m going to have to check them out.
Thanks for proving my point, amigo.
Touche. I’m not sure what you proved, but said with such authority, it must be the case.
Nick,
As you once told another similarly empassioned poster…
Serenity now…. serenity now.
So, am I to understand that since I once cooked food for extramsg, Ms. Brooks, Mr. Zusman and Tom Potter during the same lunch rush that there is a vast conspiracy to force the non-discerning customer to eat lousy food? They were all in the same room! There must be a fix in, or they just happen to like the same styles of cooking and appreciate locally grown food sourced with conviction. Whatever the verdict, I can assure you that they are not the same person. (Serving at a different place that night, I almost spilled a beer on the only person I can guess is FD.)
The reality is that this is a small town and those in the food business, even those on the edges, likely know each other in some capacity. I once sat down at a counter to an open kitchen and my buddy named 3 of the 5 people working and claimed to have slept with them all. Does being a small community mean the Portland is a backwater? Hell no. The food writing here isn’t awesome, but Mr. Integrity and Cognos aren’t doing anything to improve it.
“Ethics are objective, you are subjective” is the sort of statement that even a CC humanities professor would want to back-hand you for. FD and xmsg write about their subjective experience, assholes like us chime in. They both do this well enough that we spend our time thinking about their efforts. Same with the Oregonian, though I often can’t believe I have to pay for it.
Okay. This thread has gone on long enough, and I’m getting complaints. The big rule is no personal attacks. The last few comments, now moderated, were of that nature. Therefore, I’m closing the thread.
It’s nice to be the king.