Thursday, September 27, 2007

Ethics of Reviewing Restaurants - A Discussion

I try and I try and life keeps filling up even when I zone out with a cold. It is like "Come on, stay on the mark, keep the pace, move it, use it, do it and you know what? Your body is gonna go tell logical mind to shove it, we have a shut down in progress.

Eh, yeah. It is getting better but I'm digging into my video pile of possibilities and this is what I've come up with.

First I'd like to say that I like watching Chef Ramsay rake over the newbie chefs. I ain't ever eating at Hell's Kitchen but he gives me the shivers in a good way. I don't want to be a chef but I'd want one who has gone through the fire of his experience. The dude can be on the deep side of assertive. Like, don't lie to him. Ever.

Second, I like food. So in the spirit of understanding that it can be a tough job and the results are so transitory I bring you this clip from the Art of Foodblogging. I got no choice it is this or hand puppets but it is good stuff none the less.

There was an interesting discussion on what food bloggers can and should do ethically. I didn't know that there are some dark seeds out there that are mucking it up for the rest of us. In all things start from a position of respect and you can't go wrong.

This clip is from the Art of Foodblogging session at the BlogHer 2007 conference in Chicago.


  1. This moved me - deeply - surprisingly so. Here's to the painful death of snark. Why do critics feel they have to take a snarky attitude? Because they think audiences want fault finding. To heck with that. :) Thanks for posting this.

  2. I think that is part of it but it may be the "power corrupts" flowing through some critics veins. I want substance over venom any day of the week.

    It also might be the rise of the opportunistic bully.

    Either way it is a bad thing when there are real world victims of the dark side of expression.