Naming and shaming
I've been taken to task by various surfers for not naming restaurants when I post critical blogs - most recently when I had a good old moan about over-cooked meat and offal.
Here's the rationale. First the critcism was meant to be general and I believe it would be unfair to single out specific restaurants when I've encountered similar shortcomings elsewhere. If I encounter a problem that's peculiar to be particular restaurant, maybe that's different.
Secondly, I'm not sure that a site like this is the correct medium to direct criticism at a business. It would be good to think every waiter, chef, bar tender and restaurant owner in the city regularly reads my blogs but that's not the case. I worry, therefore, that they might be unaware of criticism and be denied - by their own ignorance, true enough - the chance to reply.
I don't shrink from criticising restaurants in my reviews in Thursday's Food + Drink section of the Birmingham Mail because I believe staff and owners are far more likely to become aware of any negative publicity when it's in print. I'm always happy to let them or their customers have their say (within reason) on the letters page.
The restaurant that served up over-cooked calf's liver, for instance, will be criitcised for this and several other perceived shortcomings in next Thursday's paper. Just as I've had a pop in the past at other places which I believe haven't delivered value for money.
You might disagree with my discretion and, as a new blogger, maybe my opinion will change. So I welcome your views because I want this site to engage readers.
Older/Newer
4 Comments
Leave a comment
Profile
Paul Fulford - Features Editor Paul Fulford gives his verdict on the region’s restaurants.
The basis of your argument seems to be that the blog is different from the paper. I can't see any reason for you to think this especially as the blogs are linked to on the main page.
That being so you should be consistent. There is no difference between your regular reviews and experiences you post here and you can link between the two.
As to the 'right of reply' I would suggest that the blog offers an aggrieved restauranteur more scope. The can always reply here. In the paper, as you indicate, that right may be circumscribed.
As to waiters etc. not reading your blog, well I'm sure they don't all read the Mail either. Perhaps naming names in the blog will make them a 'must read'.
Thanks for the feedback. Some good points to mull over. But more people read the newspaper than the blog so restaurants are more likely to be aware of comments on the printed page than the net. As you say, though, that could change as the blog develops.
But surely you write for the readers/customers rather than as a business consultant that reports via the media?
If you feel the need for them to know you're writing - tell them.
As clifford says the right to reply is even more obvious on a blog. If there was a good conversation between a business and it's customers then they might really get some good feedback rather than just your (respected and experienced, obviously) opinion.
I certainly don't view myself as a consultant. My reviews are snapshots of my experience as a punter. I write them to (I hope) amuse and entertain readers and to give a glimpse of what a place is like.
I respect those restaurants that contact me following a bad review either to express regret or tell me I've written a load of rubbish. It means they care.
The ones that stay silent concern me for it suggests, I think, that they really don't give a damn. Which probably explains why they got a bad review in the first place.
In the future, I shall name names on the blog when a moan is specific to that restaurant.