GRAB the November issue of Esquire magazine and you'll find critic John Mariani's annual list of the nation's "20 Best New Restaurants," including local hot spots Providence and Ortolan.
What you won't see is a disclaimer about which meals Mariani ate for free, and at the personal invitation of the chefs -- omissions that have exposed a deep divide in food writing circles over the ethics of restaurant reviewing.
The line is sharply drawn. Most serious journalism outlets -- including The Times and food magazines such as Gourmet and Bon Appetit -- bar critics from accepting free meals. But others routinely publish articles based on meals -- and sometimes trips -- paid for by restaurants, hotels and local tourism offices, raising questions about the credibility of the reviews.
Several restaurants, including Ortolan, made Esquire's list after serving Mariani free meals, a practice chefs and restaurant publicists described as standard when they have invited reviewers to their restaurants, or when the reviewers have made reservations through publicists.
A free meal may cost a restaurateur hundreds of dollars, but that's a small price for national exposure, and the imprimatur of a critic. Mariani, who also publishes a newsletter and is a columnist for Wine Spectator and Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Radio, has emerged during the past two decades as a national arbiter of restaurants and food trends.
But a review based on a "comped" meal, especially when the chef knows the reviewer is in the house, can result in a radically skewed perception of a restaurant's normal performance. And it raises serious questions about the reviewer's integrity.
Reviewing standards are simple, and clear. The code of ethics widely observed, and codified by the Assn. of Food Journalists, recommends reviewers dine anonymously when possible, and not make reservations under their own names. Reviewers should not write about restaurants run by friends. And reviews should be based on several visits, to make an appropriate judgment on the food and service. Failure to maintain that objective distance violates the basic contract with people who turn to reviews for guidance.
"The people who suffer are the readers," said Kelly McBride, a journalism ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. "You assume when somebody is speaking in glowing terms about a restaurant that it is because they did a true, fair and accurate review. But if the restaurant knew they were coming ahead of time and they didn't have to pay for the meal, you can't be sure the reviewers' loyalties truly lie with the reader."
