from the NY Times:
The news that Wine Spectator magazine was scammed into giving an Award of Excellence to a non-existent restaurant has been greeted with guffaws by schadenfreude fans and with fury by the magazine's editor.
But longtime readers of the Dining section might have seen this coming. Five years ago Amanda Hesser wrote that the magazine granted the award, the lowest of three levels of recognition by the magazine, without actually inspecting the restaurants involved.
Some of the reader comments at the Times site, however, note a more complex story:
It seems the halls of journalism are full of smoke and mirrors. (And people drinking wine.)
Tags: wine, New York Times, WIne Spectator
More like this
It has become almost the conventional wisdom that the obesity epidemic is at least partially attributable to people eating out. I for one really try and avoid eating out because I always feel like I end up eating junk food. But does this really matter?
In 2010, New York City health officials launched a new food safety tactic that assigned restaurants an inspection-based letter grade and required that the grade be posted where passersby could easily see it. So, did this grading make a difference?
The worker-led organization Restaurant Opportunities Center United released this month a new type of diners' guide, one that focuses on working conditions for the employees at 180 restaurants nationwide.
Most readers are probably aware that tomorrow, 2/14, is Valentine's Day, but do you know what's significant about 2/13? It's not a cue to buy chocolates -- it's a reminder that federal law only requires restaurants to pay their workers an hourly wage of $2.13.
When I first read about this, I thought it was kind of funny, but after reading Amanda Hesser's article and the response by the Wine Spectator article, I don't think Goldstein's accomplishment is all that great. This is what I especially don't like (if true) from the WS editor:
"In the case of Osteria L'Intrepido:
a. We called the restaurant multiple times; each time, we reached an answering machine and a message from a person purporting to be from the restaurant claiming that it was closed at the moment.
b. Googling the restaurant turned up an actual address and located it on a map of Milan
c. The restaurant sent us a link to a Web site that listed its menu
d. On the Web site Chowhound, diners (now apparently fictitious) discussed their experiences at the non-existent restaurant in entries dated January 2008, to August 2008."
It seems like WS did its due diligence in trying to see if the restaurant is real. I especially think the fake Chowhound reviews are in poor taste. Spammy comments pollute online communities; people other than WS might have gone looking for this restaurant and found nothing. While you may disagree with WS criteria, it's not like they led anyone astray in thinking they would actually visit the restaurant.