Writing about food is pretty much as innocent as it gets. Venture out, find things people might like to eat and write about it in a way that is useful. But there’s a sleazy side to it that most food writers don’t like to bring up.
This dingy side of it concerns restaurants giving free meals to bloggers, writers and just about anyone else who can somehow influence how their eatery is portrayed to the public. This happens under the auspices of “just showing off our new menu” or a so-called “media dinner,” which amounts to lavishing people with freebies in the hopes that the place will be mentioned in the future.
I attended two of these events years ago when I first started writing for the Weekly. But after I saw what was going on I was pretty disgusted – it was also hard to watch so-called foodies and their whole pretentious rigamarole, but that’s a topic for another day – so I didn’t go anymore. Looking back, perhaps it was somewhat ridiculous to pass on all that free food, but it seemed important.
I think it matters. As it is press releases dictate more of what you read than you realize. Businesses, including restaurants, use the press release to offer writers easy stories they have to do very little work on. With many newspapers short on staff, it’s become the easiest way to get the word out about what you’re doing.
Add to that this meal-for-mention tradition, which is rather inherent to this side of journalism, and one starts to wonder who is more responsible for the content of food stories: The writer or the restaurant. I know it’s just food, but readers deserve what is new and interesting, not what some blogger or writer knows about because they bellied up to a free dinner.
I’ve posed the question of whether it is ethical to accept these dinners to other people in Tucson’s food-writing world, and they disagreed with me. They say it’s a perk of the job and attend just about every event that drops into their inbox.
To each their own, but I think it’s sleazy. Any thoughts?
This article appears in Oct 18-24, 2012.
I agree and choose not to attend as well, Adam.
As a business owner I understand the importance of press releases as well as events that reach out to the media to grow and develop my business. At the same time, I believe there is a line between this outreach and the free meals. Maybe it is because I am not in the food industry and so don’t see it properly, but to me it seems like a fairly straight forward bribery. Giving a specific party something free in hopes of receiving something of particular benefit back seems to be the definition of a bribe.
The alternative to me would be to have open tastings and events to the public (possibly including several restaurants at once) on a regular basis and to make sure that press is specifically invited.
Sports writers get tickets to games, theater critics to shows, etc. etc. — and that doesn’t influence the way the game or the show is perceived. If a magazine or other publication is not paying the tab, how can a food writer try all the new places in town? If I don’t like a place where I get free food, I won’t write about it — at least not until I have a reason to go back and give it another chance. If I do like it, I’ll return for the “real people” experience before I write a review. And sometimes my articles are informational, not evaluative, in which case going in to a restaurant to see how the menu is executed, experience the noise level, decor, etc. is worthwhile. But it’s insulting to think I can be bought that easily. My credibility is worth more than a free meal.
To me, it is just business, the way it is always going to be. It is not necessarily sleazy. If a blogger attends and lets his public opinion be swayed by the event, that is sleazy. It follows in my opinion, that if you do not go because you know you are going to be swayed, that is also pretty sleazy. Sleazy being the word chosen for this column.
By the way, I have loved your efforts, and good luck in the future.
Become a disguise artist.
Back in the mid-70’s I was a film critic for a TV station. Sole “perk”: my station manager got me in with a year-round pass good for one plus a guest at a chain (I still paid to go to non-chain houses). Needless to say I still panned 90% of the “product.” A movie either has interesting characters that develop through obstacles as the movie progresses over three acts or it doesn’t. Either the production values are there, or they’re not. This movie either advances film as an art form or it doesn’t. I was either entertained and/or emotionally involved with action on the screen or I wasn’t. Either the theme(s) of the movie was new or re-hashed from a dozen other movies. The movie either stayed with me for a couple of days or I forgot about it by the time I hit the parking lot. You get the idea. I was not paid enough by station management for all that time wasted sitting and watching bad or mediocre movie after movie after movie. And, yes, I had to pay for my own popcorn, etc.
Does the news organization pay for the meal or does the restaurant serve it as a courtesy? If the former, does the critic enter anonymously as PVK wisely suggests? As payola does the restaurant throw in free desserts, drinks or give a courtesy discount? Treat the critic the same as any other customer or the fix is on…
My journalism ethics class at the U of A was very specific about not taking any perks while covering an event. The sole reason is the underlying principle that the facts of the story may be tainted by the “pay off.” Are journalist people with out a conscious? I really cannot say. I have yet to accept any freebie while covering a story and do not anticipate doing such. Critics should strive for anonymity and honesty in their stories.
I personally think that as long as you keep your integrity when writing about the place, or not mentioning it at all if it is not worth mentioning (good or bad), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
The established standard for journalists is clear. If you get free food than offer thanks but do not write about the meal or the provider. If you are going to write about it you pay. If you pay and write but have had previous free meals you disclose.
Citizen journalists who are perhaps even more ill-paid than the typical ink stained wretch may end up setting disclosure as the new standard.
Food writers, how about travel writers. I read the FT, and they always disclose that the travel writer was the guest of the establishment. But how can you accept, say a $10,000 safari and then say it was dreadful and expect ever to get another invitation/offer. I think most people take all travel writing with a grain of salt because of the comps. Food writing, movie reviews, its all the same. If you take anything of value from the people you report on or review, you are compromised.
Please write a piece about what a disgusting scam Yelp is.
I want to read about the so-called foodies and their whole pretentious rigamarole.
Read Yelp
I mostly agree, but I think comp dinners and free events can often be used to a writer’s advantage. In the business today, there’s simply no way to afford the constant demand of covering new restaurants/products/personalities every day. I often feel ignorant of important movements like wine culture, etc., because I can’t afford to drink wine seriously. The concept of a fully-funded food journalist is archaic, and most people have no other choice but to let PR companies aid them in their quest for knowledge. Make no mistake, food journalism is not news reporting: it’s as much about your personality and choices as it is about your subject matter. Every food journalist must find a balance and do what’s best for their work, and their belly.
” The concept of a fully-funded food journalist is archaic, ” how so? Rupert Murdock and Warren Buffet don’t invest in newspapers for their health, they do it because the cash flows are quite good. The industry is not moving fast enough to adapt to technological change and so the stock prices are low, but as businesses they can afford to pick up the checks for their reviewers. “to let PR companies aid them in their quest for knowledge.” is fine but one has to draw a line. Its rather like the relationship between a legislator and a lobbyist. Education is fine, but expense paid junkets, not so fine. BTW, I have always presumed the TW picked up the check for its food reviewers. Correct?
I can’t speak for Rupert Murdoch, but I’ve been working as a food journalist for several years, in Tucson and now the Bay Area, and have yet to be reimbursed for my meals. Newspapers don’t have no money. Food is expensive. I wish papers would pick up the check, but it just doesn’t happen anymore. The age of the anonymous, objective food writer is (sadly?) drawing to a close.
I’m not a reviewer, so I’ve always picked up my own check.
I understand what the various food writers who responded to this are saying, but I still disagree. If you attend a free dinner at Restaurant A, when it comes time to write a feature down the road isn’t the probability that Restaurant A could be included greater? Yes, it is, which is why you were invited in the first place. Why else would they be holding the event?
This differs from sports, theater and restaurant reviews. In that case the person has already chosen the topic to be written about.
Every time I bring this up I hear the same thing: That people’s integrity is so great that they are beyond the sway of influence, so that makes it fine and dandy for them to suck down the free wine and dinners because they are somehow immune. I am throwing the bullshit flag on that play. Allowing a PR firm to fill your belly, as Andi mentioned above, is working for the PR firm and not the readers of your paper.
This notion has shaped my writing significantly. I started writing about food trucks because that’s all I could afford to eat at. And guess what? I ended up writing about a subject that was approachable to a whole bunch of people because I actually had to foot the bill. I’m not saying it’s the only way to write about food, but it does have its value.
I realize everybody has to cover their asses, being as I am well aware of how many free dinners and drinks are being sucked down on a regular basis. It is my opinion that this practice is less than ethical. But, it is just my opinion.
I bet you miss the dry heat when the fog rolls in during the afternoon. I can’t imagine Michael Bauer is comped in SF. As a matter of fact I have a vague memory that he has discussed this in print. I have known people who worked for Hearst in SF and the Times in NY. The W-2s are pretty anemic even for nationally known people, but the expense accounts were unlimited and there were tons of outside income.
Adam is right in my estimation, but he hasn’t gone far enough. A reviewer needs to be independent, and how can you be that when you are absorbing a lot of free food and beverages. Even if you have the integrity of Solomon (which is rare) it has the appearance of impropriety. Then what happens to the concept of anonymity in the reviews when the reviewer has been at the restaurant’s trough for years. And what is the restauranteur going to say when a person he has been feeding gives a bad review.
I think it is a measure of the integrity of the publication that it insists on picking up the check
Adam, you are far too ethical for your own good.
Isn’t the Weekly looking for a Food Writer at this very moment? 😉 I love food, and love to write. I do not think there is anything unethical about getting “free” food and drink, if the providers understand that there are no guarantees of a fabulous review. However, this should not be a regular practice…maybe when visiting a newly opened venue, perhaps. Most times, an independent and anonymous review for food purchased on one’s own dime is going to be much more honest. But as a freelance writer (maybe even as an employed one), there should be occasional perks…it is not like these writers make “the big bucks”. Ethics are awesome… so are free food and drink for those on the frontlines in “foodyland”.
The perks are that a whole bunch of people read and trust you, not that you get to eat for free. I do not see this practice changing anytime soon – based largely on how willing food writers are to defend what is little more than sucking up to a restaurant for a free meal (so shady) – and thus the restaurants that get written about the most will be those with the best PR people and the most free meals. No big deal. Who cares if a mom-and-pop place can’t afford the media dinner and the public-relations firm to write the press release? Screw ’em! Let’s all keep tipping those glasses with knowing nods to the rest of the foodie elite whilst dining on free plates of appetizers. Because, you know, perks are so much more important than ethics, after all.
Stick to your principles, Adam. No one else can do that for you. There’s a corollary situation in those slick destination and visitor’s magazine that will provide restaurant reviews and recommendations, so long as the restaurant advertised with them. Leaf thru the coffee table “magazines” any room at those resorts in the Foothills to see it in action.
It’s contaminating the online world, too. I was unsure of the Mexican restaurant I was supposed to be at; I’m in a particular Mexican restaurant’s parking lot, I ask my smart phone for a list of Mexican restaurants in the vicinity and the nav/locator app on my phone does not list the Mexican restaurant that I’m actually at, and helpfully offers to give me driving directions to another Mexican restaurant 3 miles away. WTF?
I’ve reviewed restaurants in Melbourne, Australia (for pay; yay!) and Tucson, Arizona (so far for free, boo! lol) and thus I definitely understand both sides of this argument. Let’s be honest. Unless you are completely independent and the restaurants aren’t going to advertise in the publication, even if the writer isn’t swayed to write a biased review, the publication’s editor is going to be. I had the unpleasant experience of having the most disgusting corned beef, EVER, in Australia and while my review said that, the final article didn’t. I paid for that meal. Unfortunately. For another review, I received a great meal (FREE) from one of the places I reviewed and fortunately the steak was magnificent so I had no qualms about writing the truth, but would I have been inclined to sugarcoat the review a bit after being treated rather royally? It’s possible. Food writers are human after all, even the reviewer in probably my favorite film of all time: Ratatouille. With that said, I believe that most food writers have the strong desire to make sure that people don’t pay their hard-earned money on something that isn’t worth it. I always give my reviews the acid test: would I pay money to eat there? Am I telling the truth? At the end of the day, if I don’t like something, I will definitely say so as money is hard to come by and I don’t want people who read my reviews to waste their money or time.