Sam Sifton and trustworthiness
The New York Times has named its next food critic. Sam Sifton is the man of the hour, the guy who is supposed to replace Frank Bruni. Eater has provided a dossier, Daniel Mauer of Grub St: NY has commented on the power of the restaurant critic, and Ed Levine of SE:NY has showered Sifton with rainbows and unicorns. What really caught my attention thus far has been Sam's own comments from The New York Times. His comments on the internet went like this, "I don’t know that I trust the opinion of that guy who loved the sandwiches at Xie Xie and wrote about it on his blog, or Yelp, or Eater, or Midtown Lunch. (Why prevaricate? I don’t trust his opinion.)"
The truth is I don't the context of the Susan B quote, but as a person who fought for women's suffrage but it's safe to say she wanted the rank and file to have their say. And maybe so does Sifton, except Sifton ain't gonna really listen to the rank and file. To use his own word, he doesn't trust bloggers. Then that's the curious thing, if you don't trust bloggers, why are you even wanting to get in on the discussion? Obviously as the Times critic, if you comment on something, you're automatically part of the discussion. Is that what you meant? Or do you actually believe in dialog with people you don't trust. Or do you value people's opinions only when you've validated them for yourself? That sentence shows more of an error in logic than an open minded invitation for actual discussion.
If 'industry' people really want to sound like they know what they're talking about, maybe they should read enough blogs to know the difference between Yelp, Eater/Grub St, and Midtown Lunch. If you're an industry person, or born before 1975, consider this your "OMG what is the internets?" primer. There are user generated sites like Yelp, where they take basically all user submitted entries and sorts them based upon their proprietary extortionist policies. Eater and Grub St are mostly food news sites that tell us about restaurant openings, closings, as well as some of their own special features about the behind the scenes of restaurants. Sites like Midtown Lunch are what most blogs are, which are blogs in a specific niche that satisfy a targeted audience. Oh and of course there are cooking and recipe blogs, but 'insiders' don't hate them. People like that get invited on the Martha Stewart Show and shit. So when you're the single most powerful voice in the food blogosphere, and you roundly don't trust the food news blogs, the user generated blogs, or the niche blogs... then you don't trust ANYTHING. Then what exactly kind of discussion do you even want to have with us? After all, we're not trustworthy, right? Are the rank and file philosophers, or are we just a bunch of punks?
As far as trust for sites like Yelp. You know what? I don't trust 'em either. How many of you use Yelp? And actually believe everything verbatim? It's impossible. Sometimes there are too many reviews to read them all. Sometimes there aren't enough. If a restaurant has four and a half stars out of five, do you just read the glowing reviews, or do you read only the negative ones and try to avoid the pitfalls? Do you trust three our of five star restaurants? What does it say about you when you go to a three star place and thing, "This shit is bangin, I don't care what anyone says. More for me." So who's right? You or yelpers? Are you supposed to trust yelp or are you with Sifton and you trust nothing?
I love blogs (obviously). I spend many hours reading food blogs, technology blogs, sports blogs, and other stuff here and there. All of it is pretty interesting and it's not just mindless drivel posted by untrustworthy individuals. I'm frankly kind of sick of all these industry people shitting on bloggers. I'm going to shit the fuck back people. You hear that? I can shit the fuck, and I can do it right back at you. The best part about blogs is that they are much better at doing real-time reactions than print journalism outlets. You know, Frank Bruni has been on the job for over four years. Is anyone really believing that what he wrote three years ago completely mirrors the reality of today? Restaurants change all the time. This was made all the more evident by the Bruni's most recent review of The Union Square Cafe, where he downgraded the restaurant from three stars to two. Why? Because it ain't the same no more. We can all say what we want on yelp, but you're more likely to find recent experiences from a restaurant.
As for this whole 'internet phenomenon'... what happens right now is what's always been happening, except people have access to an expression outlet. You can say whatever you want and see it online almost instantaneously. But what did people do before that? They ask their friends. I have a friend who's into Burger King, Buffalo Wild Wings, and also Nobu. He thought Market Table was way overrated and he raves about Cowgirl Hall of Fame. He'll drop a Benji at The Harrison and the next day eat halal street food on 53rd and 6th. What I'm trying to get at is that he likes a lot of different things, just like everyone else out there on yelp. Before the advent of yelp, what you did was go, "Oh hey Jeremy, have you been to restaurant X, what did you think?" And there would be some back and forth about what to try, what was tasty, what bombed... It's just that now, in addition to asking your friends, you could twitter or facebook for advice. You could see what is on yelp and what's on the blogosphere.
Ultimately who you choose to trust says more about you than it does about the review that you're reading. I know the ins-and-outs of what my friends like. I take their suggestions and try to ascertain how that fits on their scale, and how their scale relates to my own. When you do this face to face with someone familiar, it's easy. When you do it with a blog you read regularly, you also get an understanding of where his/her suggestion comes from. If you don't trust it, that's because you don't know the source. If you don't know the source, that's because you either read general review sites like yelp, or you don't consistently read the same blogs over and over for entertainment.
Easy Ed said that Sifton is a really well-read man, so maybe the dude reads real publications and books instead of blogs. So I can't fault him for not trusting blogs. If you don't know where the opinion is coming from, it's difficult to find out whether it holds ground as it relates to your own palate. But if if he doesn't trust blogs because of the nature of blogs... meaning if he doesn't trust us because we're not professionals, then that's just stupid.
Since Sifton didn't elaborate, I would say it was just douchey and not asshole-y. I still get really sick and tired of print journalists shitting on blogging. Or when chefs shit on blogging. People who do that need to grow up. Trust me, no one is ditching NYTimes Dining section to primarily read this piece of shit. Sure, you can read them all, but no one is going to replace the Times. People just understand that in the world today, review sites basically becomes an extension of asking your friends for their opinions. It gives you a starting point. You still have to go eat it. If you have a friend named Billy Bob who constantly refers you to shitty restaurants, you're not going to trust him either. But depending on how you phrase it, it's either shitting on Billy Bob's integrity, or just saying that Billy Bob's sense of delicious veers sharply from your own. Because at the end of the day, we're still largely talking about the subjective notion of taste as it goes from your mouth to your brain. If I like to stuff my face full of korean cheetos, there's no one who's going to tell me that I'm wrong for liking them. If you do, I'm going to fucking punch you in the neck.
The pictures you see in this post are actually from Aamchi Pao. But you might want to go read about them from a trustworthy source. That's what the food critic at the most influential paper says.
Of what food are these pictures of??
Lesley
February 6, 2010 10:06 pm
You have some serious errors in your logic. So Sifton doesn't trust bloggers, he is not suppose to join the conversation? Are we suppose to go through life and avoid people we think are going to lie to us? That shows a lack of intelligence on your part and a strength on his. It sounds like he is calling out blogggers, and having them explain themselves, if they are telling the truth then they will be able go into detail with they're opinions.
Just so you know, bloggers will never replace professional writers, thats like saying interns will replace the managers, what? It's nice every tom dick and harry wants to make a comment on there life, but there will always be too many bloggers to count, however writers will always been in the spotlight, especially if "bloggers" "rip him a new one". All bloggers do, when discussing food writers, is making the food writer more known/popular, its like bad advertisement, there is no such thing. As long as Sifton isn't boring, he will be successful. The day you guys stop shining a light on him and move on to someone knew is the day they look for his replacement, but it seems you guys are too hell bent on keeping him in place, whether you like him or not, HA.
Dean
December 30, 2009 2:11 pm
Why prevaricate? I don't know I can trust a person who doesn't know the difference between online mediums. Bad start, but hopefully he'll redeem himself with some good writing. I'm pulling for the NY Times. I don't want them to fold like the rest of the papers.
bionicgrrrl
August 10, 2009 12:38 pm
good post. we have to try and keep an open mind about sifton and then, if he doesn't deliver, rip him a new one. maybe that's why he doesn't "trust" bloggers? He's afraid of our raw opinion and reviews of his job? Or is he afraid that we could eventually replace him?
Zach's blog is good - have no idea why sifton would not trust in his abilities to review places in the city. in fact, some people may trust his reviews as a regular guy out eating (like most of us) over siftons. either way sifton has big shoes to fill. i am going to try to have an open mind if i can.
we are never full
August 26, 2009 9:10 am
@FN,
You make a great point that it's about trying it out for yourself. It's still possible to dislike a highly recommended place, or vice versa. Taste is subjective and that's a good thing.
@Jack,
You know, I'm not even sure that Sam meant to say he didn't trust Zach. It seemed more like he didn't trust it if the source is unknown or unfamiliar. To that sense I can agree with him. Trust is a funny thing.
@Yvo,
The way you go about it is probably the way most of us go about it. It's really about how we adapt the opinions that we hear, more so than ranking the opinions before we have a chance to judge for ourselves.
@Hungry,
Good point about Chowhound vs Yelp. The latter just has a whack system when it comes to the ratings. It's all sorted funny and you never know who's shilling. At least on Chowhound u don't get points for being first. WTF cares who's first?
@Jonathan,
I feel that all this is just comparing swords. Actually Steph said that to me and I agree. haha. Mostly I think Sifton will make a great critic and I look forward to his reign.
Danny
August 7, 2009 2:18 pm
I hate Yelp too. I've tried reading it for reviews. But over and over again, it seems that people are just commenting just to comment. It's like facebook. I think chowhound does better with food advice.
Though, I love blogs. And I agree with Yvo 100%. I really only go by the blogs that have the same tastes as me. In fact, I started my own blog because for years I was emailing a close friend who shares the same love of food as I do. Instead of emailing it, I started a blog just for her. And now, for anyone else who cares to read it. And of course, I like to add lots of yummy pictures.
Hungry
August 6, 2009 12:43 pm
but how do you really feel?
Jonathan
August 6, 2009 5:50 pm
Bruni, Sifton, whatever. Doesn't even get me excited like it does you. I've gotten more good food and places to go from reading sites like yours than I have 20 years of NY Times.
Bottom line is, I don't have to "trust" anyone - I just go check it out for myself. A critic is just a guy with an opinion, like you, like me, like all of us.
FN
August 6, 2009 3:38 am
I actually don't sub to any of the major publications and their restaurant reviews... the only one that comes close is Serious Eats. I go by blogs because of the very real voice that comes with it, as you say. I am in near complete agreement with what you've said here. I have friends who share their thoughts on certain foods and I think "No thanks," because I know we don't have the same taste. And because I read all the blogs I want on a regular basis, I have a good idea of who eats like me and who doesn't. But I still read the ones that don't eat like me because they have pretty pictures. Ooh, pictures.
Yvo
August 6, 2009 11:00 am
This is a bit of a screed.
All Sam said was that he wasn't sure that he trusted Zach Brooks' opinion.
NOt sure why this would upset, annoy, or otherwise effect anyone but Zach. And I doubt that even he cares all that much about a single comment taken out of context.
Actually as I write this I remember that Zach was medium about Xie Xie in any case -- too much mayo -- so who knows who Sam is referring to.
But it's pretty clearly a single person not the entire "blogosphere."
Jack Barber
August 6, 2009 11:00 am