We’re always pleased when one of our restaurant critics files a favorable review of a
But we don’t expect a positive report every time one of our critics picks up a fork and pen. The accolades must be earned. Until recently, I’ve trusted that readers could distinguish our implied compact with them: We assign reviewers with knowledge of restaurant fare to sample the food and service at local eateries and then prepare responsible accounts of their experiences. We tell them to be your eyes, ears and palates — and to bring a passion to their jobs as they record as accurately as possible their reactions to what they’re served.
Now, however, I feel an obligation to further explain our approach. In part, that’s because lines have blurred in our media-saturated culture. With so many ways to access information — principal among them new publications, websites and blogs — rules of the review may no longer be as widely followed or as widely understood as they once were when newspapers and a few magazines set the cultural table. Add the facts that Louisvillians dine out more frequently than residents of nearly any other U.S. city and that they seek to educate themselves about what arrives on the plate and you have what recent surveys of Louisville Magazine readers confirm: Dining out has made its way to the top of the list of favorite activities for upscale residents here, and they (you) want to read more about the local restaurant scene.
Other publications in town have made note of this dining dynamic. Most have beefed up their discussions of chefs and the dishes they create. I’m not privy to intricacies of the editorial process at the Courier-Journal or LEO or any other periodical in our market. This much I know: Robin Garr, the indefatigable reviewer who currently appears in three Louisville publications and maintains an extensive website that catalogs his reactions to restaurants, seems to make an attempt to retain his objectivity by arriving unannounced and paying his own way for meals when he’s on the critic’s clock. And the Courier’s Marty Rosen follows the same path.
We adhere to strict rules for our own Dining Out columns, which critique one or two restaurants each month and lead into our Dining Guide capsule listings of the best eateries in the area. Better than any outlet in town, I think, we preserve the anonymity of our critics. We never run photographs of them on our pages and we ask them to eschew events, such as judging cook-offs, that place them in the public eye. Neither Hacker nor Wachsman, who have written all of our reviews since mid-2005, attends the special dinners many restaurants offer free to media members as a way to cultivate publicity. This allows our reviewers to avoid the natural tendency to “pay back” those who have wined and dined them and it keeps restaurateurs from being able to easily recognize them when they walk in to sample a menu for the magazine. (Some Louisville staff members appear at these freebie functions, but I do not; as the person who assigns and edits the reviews, I also abstain from publicity-directed meals and dine on my own, or the magazine’s, dime.)
In nearly every case, our critics are asked to visit an establishment a minimum of two times in close succession immediately prior to penning a column. Their impressions are current, though the long lead times of a monthly magazine generally mean that you read a few weeks later about their experiences. They’re also based on a second look, which rounds out the picture and confirms whether a bad dish or bad service may be an isolated incident. To fact-check information or interview chefs about their techniques, Hacker and Wachsman call back later, using the telephone instead of face-to-face questioning.
The care we take to ensure that our critics have a regular-diner encounter — so they receive the same service and treatment from the kitchen that you do — is followed through during the rest of our editorial process. Our photographers are given assignments on what to shoot at establishments under review but do not read the stories and are not told how positive or negative they might be. Restaurateurs and chefs often ask if they’re getting a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Our editorial team does not reveal any details in advance, and we never allow the subjects of the reviews to see a story prior to publication.
We take the responsibility of critiquing dining-out venues seriously and we s/files/storyimages/two enthusiastic observers of the scene to explore it for you. Our efforts to remain objective and independent, we hope, give you the confidence to follow in our footsteps.
