Reading Christina's comments about restaurant critics on Gobblers site last night made me think that Christina had a good idea there. She suggested that The Mercury should have reviews done by about 3 or 4 people about the one restaurant, in order to ensure as diverse a cross section of opinion as you could.
That would surely satisfy our voiced concerns over the credibility, experience and neccessity of just the one person to be the food arbiter here in Hobart?
But why couldn't they go even further? Why not just publish a list of restaurants that they would like to review next month, then accept reviews from anyone who went to the trouble of actually wanting to participate in this exercise? They could publish the ones they deemed fitting, and that made the review more balanced, and obviously, unbiased.
I suppose Graeme would be opposed to this idea, as it would mean The Merc wouldn't really have to pay him then. (I assume he DOES get paid for his reviews).
Anyway - it's an interesting topic for discussion if nothing else.
I personally am not generally fussed about who the hell does the Merc food reviews, until they start being unfair.
I have a brain. I use it to make up my own mind about exactly what food I want, the way I want to eat it, what price I will pay for it, where I eat it.
Other people's opinions count for nothing with me. I love it when I am informed about something, but after you've told me, I will make up my own mind, independent of everyone else.
It's called being an informed adult.
Saturday, 16 June 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Good point Rita, you'll find The Autralian employs such a tactic where the restaurant reviews are shared by at least four journos that I have seen.
On another matter, Graeme's review of Marque IV was possitively glowing much to the relief I imagine, to Paul & the crew.
He had ben a critical in the past but explained that his views had changed perhaps in snyc with the restaurant finding its feet.
It highlights to me that restaurants can & do grow with more confidence in their offerings & critics can & do get turned around from what may initially seem an unassailable position.
Agreed Gobbler. I was also interested to watch the first program on SBS last night at 6.00 called "Heat in the Kitchen" which is documenting the stories of 3 Sydney restaurants, and their attempts to gain that much-vaunted "hat rating" from the Good Food Guide.
It was interesting seeing Matt Moran interviewed before last years awards, then after, and his subsequent speech to his staff.
This obviously is a repeat, but I didn't see it first time round, and look forward to the rest of the series.
It very graphically demonstrates how much of an impact the food critics have, particularly in Sydney.
I read the Marque review, Rita, and I must say neither the review or the food ``spoke'' to me!
Phillips mentions Ferran Adria as if everyone would know who the hell he is. Not everyone is a foodie. Some description of the El Bullshit chef might have been appropriate, or at least informative.
As for the food. Look, I hate raw fish and meat. so that is a no-go for me and there's little cooking in it.
Although the side touches called for actual cookery.
Mrque is off my list for that slap-up meal I was planning for me and the missus!
A disappointed Sir Grumpy.
WHAT A SAD MISERABLE LIFE YOU MUST LEAD?! MAYBE YOU SHOULD STICK TO THE TAKE AWAY FOOD SCENE, SOUNDS LIKE IT'S RIGHT UP YOUR.....?!
Oh, Oh, BILE ALERT.
Sir Grumpy.
Sir Grumps - I'm so sad you feel that way about Marque IV. I'm not going to go the hard sell on you here, but I really would love it if you could give the degustation a go.
I too am quite definitely not a raw meat or fish eater, but as it constituted part of the dusgustation, and I wanted to experience the full thing properly, I had all courses.
I have to admit that some of the descriptions make the food, if you are a tad squeamish about it, feel "no way am I having that!"
But after I'd mentally slapped myself round a bit & decided I would brave it out - I actually found myself raving about this food!
I also have never heard of Ferran Adria or whoever. Maybe my life could have been WAY better if I had, but I haven't and neither have you, so....?
Nellie & Mr Nellie ate at MIV on Sat night as part of the 40th celebrations. Nellie is usually a vegetarian, but she did have most of the degustation and also loved it.
So - I really would love to see you and Lady G there one night.
As for you, anon - Sir G is correct - "bile alert" seems to sum you up quite succinctly enough.
If this is Marj - sorry if I've offended you when you were trying to be funny. If it isn't, I'm not sorry about anything!
Yes, Rita, I may have been a bit previous.(!)
I take on board all you say and bugger it, I will do a complete turnaround and put it back on my ``must try'' list.
I am a non-believer when it comes to raw fish and meat but I am not easily made queasy.
I once ate a virtually raw steak at Ball $ Chain. Friends treated us and the missus got a rare steak in the hubbub.
(Can be nasty that... a rare steak in the hubbub).
She was too mortified to complain, us being treated an all, so guess what?
She grabbed my chicken dish and I got the steak. Bloody as buggery it was but I laid back and thought of Tasmania.
But, I remain a non-fan of uncooked. I know it can be the best-sourced piece of meat ever.
However, I like to be cooked for when I go out.
Cheers, Sir Grumpy.
Post a Comment