thecriticalcouple
  • Home
  • The Food Blog
  • CC Cocktails
  • Wellbeing
  • Other Stuff
  • Contact

In defence of food blogs

23/5/2012

43 Comments

 
Picture
A friend in Hong Kong recently sent me a picture of a local magazine cover carrying the headline: Death to Foodies, Are amateur reviewers the scourge of the dining scene? Anyone keeping a food blog is used to a bit of abuse but death to foodies, really? The article itself for those who would like to read it can be found here though it's a lot less incendiary than the cover suggests, even fair at times. Running a headline like that, it is with irony that the article accuses bloggers of attention seeking. Also worth noting, HK Magazine like most blogs, delivers its content for free.

It would be wrong however not to recognise that there is at least some hostility to food blogs. In our experience, the criticism takes three forms: first, that food bloggers are trying to compete with the professionals, second, that food bloggers don't know what they are talking about, and third, that food bloggers are somehow damaging the industry.

The first point, that food bloggers are trying to compete with the professionals, is simply laughable. The Sunday Times for example has a readership on 2.6 million adults. We have little idea how many unique users the average food blog gets but assuming it's 2,000 per week, that is a measly 0.077% of The Sunday Times readership base. To put this in perspective, if The Sunday Times readership was a journey from central London to New York, the average blogger from the same starting point fails to reach Earls Court. Hardly competition.

Critics appear to make the assumption that food bloggers are trying to compete with the professionals simply because they work hard on their blogs to the best of their ability, the argument is no truer than amateur dramatics groups trying to compete with the RSC simply because they put a lot of effort into their own production. It seems to be hardly recognised that blogging is done by amateurs as a hobby rather than a surreptitious plot to displace Giles Coren from his weekly column. 

When it is recognised that blogs are kept by hobbyists, it's done with contempt. Lotte Jeffs in the Evening Standard sneered: ‘Anyone with a camera and a couple of synonyms for delicious can be a food blogger these days’. The message here in the broader context effectively condemns any person who seeks to enjoy a hobby. Give someone a football and they think they can be a footballer? Don’t try and play the piano, you’re no Rachmaninov. Why stop there, anyone who puts on make-up thinks they’re a super model surely? Displaying some consistency however, Ms Jeffs, knowing that she will never be Socrates, appears to have given up thinking.

Then of course there is the issue of the quality of blogs. One might reasonably expect food blogs will cover the spectrum of very good to very bad. But is it an unreasonable assumption to believe that readership might correlate even loosely with quality? It's hard to imagine that a truly terrible blog has a massive or loyal readership. A bad review by a blog that no one reads is like the tree that falls in a forest when there is no one there to hear it: does it make a sound?

Are professionals the sole guardians of real truth and real understanding of food? AA Gill recently wrote in the Sunday Times of The Ledbury:

The cooking is refined and calm. It resists unnecessary exclamations or startling contradictions. It doesn't test your palate or demand attention.

Not so said fellow professional Andrew Neather of the Evening Standard previously:   

Graham's food is both bold and complex. It's hard to imagine many of these dishes as a conventional main course... these plates composed of small parcels of contrasting flavours.

Is it 'refined and calm' or 'bold and complex'? Can food that 'resists startling contradictions' really be considered  'parcels of contrasting flavour'? Only one can be right surely, but both are professional reviewers. Perhaps there's not a single truth possessed by the professionals that is unavailable to the amateur blogger. Plurality of views is surely a good thing and having read contrasting views of The Ledbury's food by two professionals, blogs allow interested readers to delve a little further.

Bloggers are also accused of trampling the English language. Possibly so, but we are not alone. In a review of The Honours in The Guardian, the dessert is described thus: 

Chocolate délice though, was unimpeachable, albeit its honey ice-cream wasn't very honeyed and its preciously named "crème vièrge" tasted oddly like plain old whipped cream, but its slim-line serving was so slight as to be borderline mean.

Since my dictionary defines unimpeachable as 'not open to doubt or question', how did she manage three criticisms of an unimpeachable dessert? Bloggers don't have the luxury of a full time editor; this did and still got published. If a blogger had written that, well.

Ironically, what's allowed food bloggers to thrive is the absence of attention paid to food by those who most scorn bloggers: the professional reviewers. Back in 2009, AA Gill reviewed the Edinburgh restaurant 21212. What did we learn in that review? As well as an account of his taxi ride from the station and Edinburgh traffic levels and roadworks, we learn that:

I was up here to see my daughter Flora play at the festival. She was Jocasta in Oedipus. An awkward part on so many levels. They did quite well, as the average Fringe audience is six; they were attracting 50 or 60 for each matinée, and she was captivating, having learnt that most elusive and winning of theatrical skills: stillness.

For sure, we all love reading about AA Gill's children and undoubtedly he is a brilliant writer, but his column has simply ceased to be about food in the same way that his good friend Jeremy Clarkson's column has ceased to be about cars. In Gill's review of 21212, my wordcount function suggests that of the 1,318 words written in the column, only 445, just 33%, are actually about 21212. Since some people do want to read about food, the door was left wide open and ultimately bloggers filled that role, even if they are amateurish about it. 

In fact, if bloggers are palpably so bad but apparently so widely read, it points to an astonishing failure of the professional media in not giving readers what they want - proper food journalism, not ego-centric soap boxes. It's a huge failing on the part of journalists and editors and now they rue their mistake.

Finally, there's the supposed power of the blogs, a power that is assumed will ruin restaurants and even the industry as a whole if bloggers are left unchecked. Utter nonsense. Former Sun editor Rebekah Brooks in testimony to the Leveson inquiry said of the power of The Sun newspaper:

Your power is your readership - it's not an individual power. Everyday the readers can unelect us as newspapers

If the Murdoch stable of newspapers can deny having individual power, how then can journalists from these very newspapers claim that blogs with just 0.077% of their readership have the ability to wield so much power? The HK magazine that says that amateur reviewers are the scourge of the industry talks of any 'blowhard with a camera' having a 'potentially powerful voice'. If that is true, it would achieve something that Ms Brooks under sworn testimony claimed that even The Sun newspaper (readership 7.2million) never achieved.

We occasionally receive comments on our website that start off 'I hate food blogs...' Why then do these people spend their time reading them?  It's hard to come across food blogs by accident, you have to seek them out, but if you do happen to unwittingly find them, you don't have to stay. Not even a food blogger is stupid enough to believe that everyone will like food, restaurants or their blog but most expect some toleration. The definition of a bigot is 'a person who holds an opinion obstinately and is intolerant towards those who do not'. 'Death to foodies', 'I hate food blogs' when left as a comment on a food blog and the 'anyone with a camera...' sneer, these are the very words of bigots.

We have already suggested that bloggers have no power; the very worst of them presumably have no readership either. But all bloggers are amateurs enjoying a hobby, trying hard to write well (even if they fail to do so) and many blogs do give some pleasure to whatever readership they do have. If food blogs are not your thing, don't join the bigots, rather, spend your time on things you do enjoy and you will undoubtedly be a happier and nicer person. Death to foodies is not the answer.


Follow on post: Are you sharing the restaurant with an annoying food blogger?



43 Comments
Maggieg link
23/5/2012 05:38:37 am

Well said! There is also a lot of petty jealousy between food bloggers (particularly here in Ireland). The arguement that bloggers do not write well is rubbish as you said we are not journalists or professionally trained but yet let those who criticise loudest i.e. journalists or food writers try to the job I am qualified to do!

Reply
Ozzy link
23/5/2012 05:44:48 am

Well put.

I just write about food on my blog because it's one of my main areas of interest. If I was a trainspotter or stamp collector, I would write about that. I don't claim to be an expert or be better than a food critic but if what I write can help my friends and the few others who read it, either to choose a restaurant they like or pick up a recipe idea, then my job is more than done.

As a punter, I'm much more inclined to use a blogger's opinion (especially if I know how they think/taste) if I wanted to find out if a certain restaurant is for me. Professional critics' reviews are often empty shells and don't actually say anything useful, especially people like AA Gill who basically wrote a bad review about Alimentum because he doesn't like Cambridge. There was one paragraph that actually described the food and that was positive.

Reply
@Bebejax link
23/5/2012 06:26:30 am

We write about what we love, precisely because of that. I also write about art and the Renaissance - is this somehow more highbrow than the food blog? The art material is well-received, but in reality it's the food blog that's proven far more popular.

A number of us, yourselves included, buy professional equipment, read all the books, try out the techniques etc. I've been eating in Michelin starred restaurants for 25 years - I've been recreating those dishes for 25 years - just because one I'm not mad enough to want to work full-time in a professional kitchen, it doesn't mean that I don't have the ability to assess a dish in both concept and construction.

I notice that none of the "big" reviewers are particularly big cooks - how are they qualified to comment in a way that we are not?

Finally, I've never met a chef yet who isn't really happy to get down to the nitty-gritty of the dish, to talk about the provenance of his ingredients, to take the time to discuss technique. In everything I read it's the bloggers who go into this level of detail, and I think it's been a year since I last read a review of a restaurant by a critic as anything other than an entertaining read. If I want to know what people think about a restaurant, I turn to twitter, or to the bloggers I trust.

Reply
Ozzy link
23/5/2012 06:47:47 am

Exactly. Regarding your last paragraph, an excellent example was Sat Bains. He didn't know who we were, we didn't ask to see him but the staff picked up how enthusiastic we were about the food and that we engaged with the people serving us etc. so we were invited into the kitchen for a chat (and an extra course) and Sat was really cool and happy to talk about his philosophy and how everything worked. It's going to be hard to top that experience.

@Ralphcat link
23/5/2012 06:48:52 am

Great read and an even better response. Why do people have to look at what other people do so closely, only so they can have a dig?

I, like many others, enjoy food and other activities and like to share them with friends and complete strangers. If 1 person reads my blog and gets in touch I am happy. If nobody reads it I'm not going to lose sleep.

And why do these "famous" reviewers think they can review everything? A.A Gill does food, television and anything else that pays. If I want an informative piece to read I will look for someone who has a keen interest in the subject; not someone who responds on everything.

Reply
Ginandcrumpets link
23/5/2012 07:07:05 am

Excellent, excellent stuff.

Reply
Georgina
23/5/2012 10:26:19 am

As a keen cook and restaurant-goer (I can't bring myself to use the word "foodie"), I enjoy reading food blogs but I do not write one myself. I enjoyed reading your post on food blogs and people's issues with them.

However, one thing I think you have missed is that there is an inherent suspicion (especially with more well-known blogs) that reviews might not be entirely impartial. Some bloggers (naming no names) do seem only to review places to which they have been invited, which does devalue the review somewhat and not help with the impression that bloggers are "blaggers". For this reason, I entirely welcome the fact that you have started a full disclosure table at the bottom of each post - it certainly, in my opinion, gives your blog much more credibility than others.

Reply
Alex
23/5/2012 10:44:19 am

Great article.

Reply
CorkGourmetGuy
23/5/2012 11:33:07 am

I can never understand the abuse directed at food bloggers, As a chef it's important to understand the benefit they can bring to your restaurant. I've seen first hand the impact that social media can have. While head chef at Ben's Canteen I had a standing instruction to the front of house staff that if anyone produced a camera or camera phone to photograph the food I was to be told immediately.
In most cases bloggers tended to announce themselves when they booked, not because they were necessarily looking for a freebie
but because they hoped to have a word with me about the food we were doing. I always found time to chat with them and felt that they appreciated that far more than knocking money off the bill.

That's not to say I didn't send out little tasters above what they ordered, think about it, it's good business. A blogger can only review the food they have eaten and it's unlikely they will order the whole menu so by sending some additional little dishes they give more information to their readers and your potential customers.

The only time I have refrained from sending these little tasters is if the blogger in question gave the impression that they were expecting something for nothing. People who are serious about reviewing food will be fully prepared to pay for it, those who want it for free are just trying to blag a free meal.

The thing about bloggers is that they seem able to remove themselves from the review in a way that the likes of AA Gill or Giles Coren choose not to do. I find reading either of them incredibly tiresome and pointless, at the end of any piece I know a great deal about them, their family, their friends and their lives and little to nothing about the food they ate.

Reply
JT
24/5/2012 04:58:37 am

Cork Gourmet Guy - why do you feel you have to treat bloggers any different to regular customers? Sure they can be good for business, much like a good Tripadvisor review, but why should your front of house have to tell you there may be one. Are you going to put extra effort into their food or as you say send out a freebie? Shouldn't all customers get the same treatment if they are spending the same money. They are writing about their hobby which is food and thus they should be treated the same, unless like CC here, you invite chefs to cook for you and then I guess you can be expected to be treated how you want.

People miss the point about AA Gill - sure only 33% might only be directly about the restaurant but the other 66% does link in and is relevant to his synopsis of whether us the reader should go there. 9 times out of 10 he is right about a place, he gets why it is there, what purpose it is serving whether to the greater advancment of food or serving a local community. And they also have a job to make things interesting to non-foodies otherwise people wouldn't buy the newspaper.

Blogs are good for those who choose to use them either way, those who don't shouldn't get so hot under the collar, restauranteurs should just treat them as any other punter. But if the punter goes fawning, like the well known DF on EG, then that is rather pathetic!

Reply
John Middleton
23/5/2012 01:13:49 pm

I love food blogs, keep it up... good article!

Reply
Russell Brown link
23/5/2012 01:20:14 pm

Having been the subject of your blog and a reader of it for the past 12 months all I can say is keep at it! Restaurants are assessed and critiqued in various ways by both professionals and amateurs. I have noticed that comments on newspaper reviews by professional journalists can be equally vitriolic and I'll informed as on amateur blogs.
The Internet and social media gives us all the opportunity to voice an oppinion.

Reply
Alan spedding ( cumbriafoodie ) link
23/5/2012 02:13:52 pm

Well written , i enjoyed reading that one.

Reply
Sven
23/5/2012 02:28:13 pm

I hate food blogs

Reply
Bjorn link
24/5/2012 12:31:00 pm

Good Reply!

Reply
James Lewis
24/5/2012 04:00:32 am

Agree but think you've missed the point re critics 'not talking about food' in reviews, I think a clever writer can get his point across using life as a reference, micro-scrutinising over dishes is quite simply a bit boring.

Reply
Kirky
24/5/2012 05:53:26 am

Really good and thoughtful comment. Congrats

Reply
Average Joe
24/5/2012 12:40:28 pm

I have no objection to food bloggers, as long as they don't invade my space or disturb my dining experience.

However, having once had a self appointed food critics at an adjacent table jumping up out of their seats to photograph their plates at each course, it was annoying. As a child I was not allowed to leave my seat at the table unless I had finished my meal or needed the bathroom. It is bad manners.

Do your blogs, but show a little decorum when taking photos. Better still, either don't or pay for private dining so as not to annoy others.

Reply
thecriticalcouple
24/5/2012 05:19:44 pm

Average Joe,

we've never once jumped out of our seats to take a photo. we always try to respect other diners.

regards
CC

Reply
thecriticalcouple
27/5/2012 04:20:17 am

PJ,

the bragging argument doesn't hold surely. first, what is your evidence that food bloggers are bragging or is that just how you feel about food bloggers? second, since food blogs (and therefore their presumed boasts) can be entirely avoided by not reading them, to hate the blog owner for his private utterings is ridiculous. Food blogs are not forced on to anyone, reading them is an entirely voluntary experience.

personally, we don't like football. we choose not to read football blogs - in fact, we presume they exist but we've never looked because we simply don't care. we don't hate people who do keep football blogs, in fact, we don't think about them at all. we're sure there are people who boast in them, wave their season ticket in your face and show off their superior knowledge and tell you why a certain player is not as good as everyone thinks he is or why the manager has got it wrong (again). we don't hate that person either, we don't care and we don't read his blog.

to hate someone for keeping a website you simply never have to read seems a reaction disproportionate to the 'offence' caused.

if you hate people for keeping a food website, what emotion do you reserve for those who keep racist, sexist or homophobic websites? we wonder if the food haters are equally zealous here in condemnation or do you place them all in the same category of 'people deserving of hate'.

thecriticalcouple
28/5/2012 11:15:45 am

PJ,

the discussion is about food blogs in general and not specifically about us; we may or may not be a different case.

to your point, just because food blogs are on the internet, they are still not rubbed into people's faces; don't like food blogs, don't read them. but be tolerant, not a bigot about it.

the point that they are published on 'the most public of media' means nothing really since there is content on every subject in the world on the internet but having the internet in no way forces people to read all the material available (including food blogs). "It's there so I have to read it" seems to be your point.

as for Twitter, if you do not want to read a food bloggers tweets, don't follow them. It's there so I have to follow them? would you seek to remove people from twitter who have interests or opinions that you don't share. are you sure that your tweets are that much more interesting?

the idea that food bloggers should have passwords in case people who don't want to read food blogs should come across them is quite frankly stupid. since we don't like football blogs, should they be forced to have passwords? fashion blogs? where does it stop.

your broader argument is this: people who publish things on the internet I don't like should not make their material publicly available without password protection.

the view that YOU don't like food blogs so they should not be freely available on the web is essentially that of a totalitarian. Hate directed at food blogs is substantially more a reflection on the intolerance of those who hate than on anything to do with food blogs themselves.

The internet is a venue for free speech though like oppressive regimes from China to North Korea, you would seek to limit its content to topics that are agreeable to you. you don't like food bloggers because you think they are bragging? is such a remarkable intolerance of views different to your own a more attractive quality.

No Expert link
24/5/2012 01:40:41 pm

Some good points in your post. I read the HK magazine artical, I suspect it's a very small minority of Food Bloggers that let their food go cold to get a picture.

I am always amused by this kind of luddite attitude. Food blogging has smoothly integrated with Social Media. It's not going to go away anytime soon.

Reply
Kavey link
29/5/2012 01:25:18 am

Some really great points, and very well made. Very good read.

As for the tired argument about bloggers leaping up to photograph dishes or using the flash, I don't do either. In fact, until my point and shoot was broken, I doubt most fellow diners would even have noticed me taking pics as I'd grab usually just one, occasionally two shots of a dish and then get on with eating and enjoying it. Now I've had to take my larger camera in, but again, quick and quiet with no flash and no standing up.

I've written a few negative reviews (both for places I've paid to visit and places I've been invited for free) but certainly there are less negative than positive reviews. Why? Because I eat out for pleasure and do my best not to choose places which I think I'll dislike. With the great range of information out there, including food blogs, I am able to choose pretty well.

When I do have a poor experience, whether it's the food or the service or something else, I write about it as fairly and politely as I can. I don't exaggerate for effect. And indeed, a number of restaurateurs/ associated suppliers have contacted me (in positive way) about my reviews, discussed them with me further and made changes based on things I've said. That doesn't suggest to me that restaurateurs universally hate the damage that bloggers can do!

I don't think my writing is anything special, but I enjoy writing my blog, it's a wonderful hobby that gives me a great deal of pleasure. I try and be respectful of those I write about and fellow diners. Those who do visit my site do so by choice, no one is forced to read the blog, nor follow my tweets or FB updates.

Reply
PB
29/5/2012 02:20:08 am

I read quite a lot of food blogs, and generally enjoy them a lot - some are better written than others, some have better pictures, but generally they are useful in getting an idea about new places to go, and enjoyable to read.
A few (hopefully carefully worded) points regarding your article, and about 'food blogs' in general rather than any in particular.
- It's easy to think that when someone says they dislike bloggers taking photos in restaurants (esp with flash) they are referring to all bloggers. But it only takes one or two instances of this happening to be annoyed by it. Doesn't mean that everyone does it at all, but it affects perceptions
- There's something slightly showey-off about blogging (necessarily I think), which involves showing all the nice places you've been to, going to the hot, new places first etc. As I say, this is kind of part of what makes blogging useful to people like me, but it's easy to see that as being ostentatious if you want to
- Following quite a lot of blogs, and seeing the community appears to have built up (from comments on each others' blogs, on twitter etc), it's possible to see it as a slightly self-congratulatory group. I'm not saying it is at all, and I guess it's actually a nice thing that the internet has linked people with similar interests, but it could be perceived that way.
Anyway, as I said at the top, I enjoy reading blogs even if they are sometimes a little annoying, but then I can always stop reading. I guess it just pays to have a bit of a thick skin if you're putting your own criticism out on the internet, since other people will inevitably feel they can criticise themselves. Also, it only takes one or two bad experiences (reading something online, feeling a meal is impacted by a blogger) for people's perceptions of the class of food bloggers as a whole to be tarnished.

Reply
PB
29/5/2012 02:25:27 am

Sorry, just to add another point... The idea that food bloggers may be influenced by freebies is also certainly a big issue. Obviously not one that applies here, or to most of the blogs I read, because they always declare any freebies, but again it's an issue of perception & trust. Some blogs (e.g. that hilarious London Larder thing) obviously just use writing as a way of blagging free meals, and that does everyone a disservice - bloggers & readers alike.

Reply
CK
29/5/2012 03:03:07 am

I think the responses to PJ should be printed and framed, absolutely brilliant! How anyone could think CC doesn't have an amazing command of the English language is beyond me. Keep blogging guys!

Reply
Kirky
29/5/2012 03:32:33 am

I am with CK re the quality of the response: flawless logic from the Critical Couple. As an aside, is photographing food REALLY so offensive? It nevers bothers me. Or is the argument that photography itself is offensive? Should cameras be banned per se in restaurants?! Should having a good time be banned, and we all sit in silence, as if we were naughty school children told to be quiet by our mothers once again. Food for thought, ahem

Reply
EasyPeasey
29/5/2012 04:24:03 am

We may not be "professional" food writers, but the opinion of Joe Public is as important to restaurants as the people who get paid to eat. The people who rubbish restaurants for the sake of it are giving those of us who really enjoy what we do a really bad name. I don't do what I do for freebies...in fact, I've only ever had one and that was because the restaurant I visited the first time was so bad, they sent me vouchers for another meal to make up for it.
Let us enjoy our hobby! We enjoy food, we enjoy writing about it and, those of us who take it seriously, aren't doing any harm. If you don't like it, don't read it!

Reply
Sally - My Custard Pie link
29/5/2012 05:22:26 am

Giving you a massive round of applause for writing this. Very well said.

Reply
Sarah Walton link
29/5/2012 05:38:38 am

Sally sent me here. Ditto - well said. I'm sick of the backlash food bloggers get - it's completely unsubstantiated, as you have pointed out, but unfortunately the only people who know or care are about this are those that read your blog (0.077% of The Sunday Times readership base) or mine (probably less). They're probably just scared because someone just reminded them of the story of David and Goliath...

Reply
FooDiva link
29/5/2012 05:42:02 am

I've been waiting for someone to respond to that damning article. Congratulations - very well researched post. Balanced and not at all defensive.

Reply
Joyce link
30/5/2012 12:14:05 am

Spot on written, especially on the point of professional reviews also include lots of their own experience than about the restaurant. Food bloggers definitely take a lot of hit like this, people should start to recognise that it's a very expensive hobby, not like we make any money or are paid to write a single review. Then how can it be comparable to professional reviews who have editors, budget and a vast readership. Blog was always suppose to be a different form of media. Really enjoyed your post as always.

Reply
Paul
2/6/2012 01:53:16 am

CC > Great piece, well written and with considerable sense behind it. Frankly, I think articles like the HK one are just deliberately inflammatory and written with no appreciation for the positives.

Basically I believe there is only one argument that even matters here... like every other site on the internet, food blogs are subject to the rule of free speech. You are free to say what you want, I am free to support it, ignore it, not look it at or write my own contradictory comment or even create an "I hate the foodie blogs blog" :-)

Personally I choose to read the CC blog as a) this is a couple that truly is passionate about food and write thoughtfully about it and b) I think you always give a very balanced view.

Keep up the great work - ignore the haters and enjoy the food...

One more point --- given the slight "burger focus" of late - may I suggest BurgerBar in Amsterdam...

Paul x

Reply
Nick Harman
10/6/2012 10:19:04 am

I think the fourth complaint about bloggers is that by dancing about with cameras in restaurants and spending so much time hunched over mobiles tweeting they rather annoy other diners and snub the people they are dining with in favour of people elsewhere. The only thing worse would be to make phone calls all dinner long.

Gill and the others, are understandably running out of fresh things to say about restaurants and food. They know that after years and years on the job that with everything they write they are inevitably in danger of repeating themselves, albeit unconsciously. They are also no doubt getting a bit bored with the job.

They also know that a review has to be entertaining, that's why writers write reviews and not chefs, who would doubtless be be far more knowledgeable about the food but would bore the reader to death.

Same with cars. If I want to actually buy the new Ford Whatsit, I'll read about in Which. If I want a good read about the Ford Whatsit, I'll read Clarkson.

It's worth noting that gill, coren, williams, norman and good critics write about other things too, invariably well. They were good writers before they were restaurant critics and will still be good writers when their livers give up and they have to drop the food writing side of things. They aren't obsessed with restaurants and that is what ultimately makes them more interesting to read than bloggers.



Reply
thecriticalcouple
10/6/2012 10:57:15 am

nick,

thanks for your comment, I agree with much of what you say. My one observation however would be misuse of Twitter and mobile devices is widespread by people generally (not just bloggers) and across a variety of places (not just restaurants but theatres, cinemas etc). Businessmen using Blackberrys are far more prevalent during most lunch services than bloggers. My point: just because they are on a mobile device shouldn't lead anyone to jump to the conclusion they are bloggers.

Reply
Nick Harman
10/6/2012 11:07:59 am

well yes businessmen rarely 'eat' the food anyway. I have been to countless business lunches at great restaurants where the food could have been made out of papier mache as far as I was concerned, unable to enjoy it owing to pressure. And yes bizness men will answer emails at lunch and even take calls, but that's lunch not dinner, they arent with friends or loved ones, its fair enough. they are still at work.

I think you can tell the diff between a blogger and a business person - age hysterical mannerisms if female, nerdiness if male, and remarkable evolutionary rapidity of thumbs on smartphone are just some clues as to the blogger

thecriticalcouple
10/6/2012 02:39:00 pm

following on from this, please see our new post: Are you sharing the restaurant with an annoying food blogger?

http://www.thecriticalcouple.com/13/post/2012/06/are-you-sharing-the-restaurant-with-an-annoying-food-blogger.html

Reply
larder cupboard link
23/6/2012 10:47:22 pm

Well written , i enjoyed reading this.

Reply
Girlieannyen
29/6/2012 11:21:02 pm

Very well written! Keep it up CC!

Reply
Timbuc
3/10/2012 09:20:49 am

Lovely piece. Fabulous logic and even more so in the response to comments.

However, the thing I'm going to love you forever for is this:

"Displaying some consistency however, Ms Jeffs, knowing that she will never be Socrates, appears to have given up thinking."

Perfect.

Reply
Simon Food Favourites link
22/11/2012 05:26:24 pm

A great read and much food for thought. Interesting to read all the comments too :-) Hopefully one day this old chestnut will pass and be a non-issue for all.

Reply
thehungrymanc link
21/7/2013 11:38:08 am

Great piece. At a time when I was beginning to think of giving up my own blog, your words here have reminded me that I have every right to continue a hobby which I enjoy.
Thank you.

Reply
TCC
21/7/2013 11:55:01 am

thanks for the comment, it made our day, you have every right to blog. don't let a vocal few stop you enjoying your hobby.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. (Oscar Wilde)