Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: Today

Re: “Nearly Mythical

First of all, my issue is not with Mark. He is a talented writer and obviously fully capable. My issue is with the editorial decision to focus on personalities behind the food instead of the food itself in lieu of any actual reviews. I think these pieces that talk about the background and personal stories of the people behind a restaurant have a place but they should be complimentary to a solid review process. Nobody is going to restaurants because of the Chefs life story, they are there for the food, and if the chef happens to have a great story, that is even better. These stories should not go away, but they should take a back seat to a more traditional restaurant review process.

These are very soft pieces of writing and come off as advertisements. It is a legitimate question to ask if the Weekly is being paid and how these restaurants are chosen. It matters. I think the Chow section could use some investigatory backbone, for example, if a restaurateur makes a claim that they are sourcing their food locally they should be asked more details about that, this sort of 'green washing' is rampant in the restaurant industry and deserves attention. Mark should know that. It is not about bashing or attacking the restaurant but it is about holding them accountable to their customers.

Obviously The Weekly does not subscribe to the the broadly accepted paradigm n in the food world of the reviewer remaining anonymous. Most food reviewers at major outlets know that anonymity is the best way to insure the integrity of their reviews; it prevents restaurants from treating them differently than other patrons, preparing things with better ingredients, or any of the other myriad of changes a restaurant would make knowing that a review was being written. The Weekly has chosen an approach that gives all the power to the restaurant and takes away the power and independence of the reviewer.

What does all of this mean to me the reader? Whether these are paid advertisements or not, I cannot trust the small portion that actually addresses the food and even if the food is great it is marred by an inappropriate relationship between the reviewer and the restaurant.

That is my opinion, obviously a lot of people agree with me and a lot don't. I would encourage those who disagree to consider the relationship between a reviewer and a restaurant, and how that relationship can impact the veracity and quality of a review. Are you really going to get the same experience that Mark gets? Maybe we should all start notifying restaurants that we will be publishing a review when we make our reservations. Don't forget to schedule an interview too...

Posted by HumanBean on 05/26/2017 at 10:41 AM

Re: “Danehy

*standing up and applauding Rick Spanier's post*

When I consider "what forces propel two presidents who could not be more different in style and demeanor from pursuing the same destructive objectives" -- all I come up with is "follow the money."

Who is being enriched? Who is being impoverished? Mainstream Democrats are bought and paid for by big corporations and untraceable campaign donations (dark money). Mainstream Republicans are bought and paid for by big corporations and untraceable campaign donations (dark money).

The whole system is corrupt, and us regular folks are suffering in so many ways.

Posted by blaze_mason on 05/26/2017 at 10:11 AM

Re: “Nearly Mythical

While I will agree that the story last week about Old Chicago pizza was putting lipstick on a pig, I felt this was a solid review. For those people who cannot figure out how to google the restaurant to see the menu, here you go Human Bean....https://www.facebook.com/SkyDragonChinese/…. Seriously, HB, why don't you try your hand at writing a restaurant review and let everyone else pick it apart.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by RobG on 05/26/2017 at 8:43 AM

Re: “Danehy

Right Joel. Whatever that meant.
Try listening to AZ/DC. He'll show you how to disagree making intelligent points without being a moron. If that's possible.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by CW13 on 05/26/2017 at 7:29 AM

Re: “Hemp Haters

In order for a overide the legislature would have to meet, in az they have a half time legislature so most are going home for legislative session has closed. This the reason AZ needs a fulltime legislature paid out of the marijuana dollars. The LDS CATHOLIC moral compass is having it,s last tilt off of true north this is the call to not look at the national headlines lets look HARD!! Our local represenatives if this is not promised then we need to send them home. Keep them poor they need us more

There is something stinky, talk about contributors MPP wont even disclose who their contributors were. I dont understand Adleson contributing a millon to defend his business with the existing MMJ law as opposed him trying to buy into by force the what he felt was extortion by the like of the junk bond salesman Holyoak and his BS prop 205. Unless Nick can list the expedures on both sides the argument is useless what the point ?

I am in Seattle right now come here often as well as Eugene. I can witness first hand and you want to see homeless issues Tucson is a paradise compared to this. So one thing nice is they don't pull the zoning BS where county gets to renegotiate if allowed while they take the tax dollars. Doing this from my phone sorry topos

Posted by Carpet baggers on 05/26/2017 at 7:15 AM

Re: “Danehy

Obama was a good, not great, president. Given the nature of the disloyal opposition's obstructionism and thinly veiled contempt, he did a decent job and left office with higher approval ratings than Trump will ever enjoy. That said, I notice similarities in the policies of both these presidential polar opposites. If you (on both sides) can cast aside your selective outrage, consider:

Both Obama and Trump set out to deport millions of undocumented with the assurance "only the criminals will be targeted." Both lied, and to date Obama holds the records for deporting the most undocumented without criminal histories - a number in the high hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Both Obama and Trump administrations brokered arms deals to our enemy in Saudi Arabia to the tune of over $100 billion. Remember 9/11 and the Saudi export of virulent radical terrorist ideology through an expanding network of madrases.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations actively engaged in an assault on US public schools under the premise of school improvement with funding going largely to private sector leeches. Remember Arne Duncan? I do. Like Betsy DeVos? I don't.

So if we take a moment to set aside our partisan-based disgust with either the former or present president, it might be a good idea to begin considering what forces propel two presidents who could not be more different in style and demeanor from pursuing the same destructive objectives.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rick Spanier on 05/26/2017 at 6:53 AM

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation