Marc Vetri says food journalists have gotten lazy

Marc Vetri would make a dandy critic. He's well-schooled, erudite and never one to shy from his convictions, whether it's the inanities of restaurant week or the wide-ranging ignorance surrounding gluten.

His latest topic is food journalism.

"How Food Journalism Got as Stale as Day-Old Bread" is the headline on an editorial he wrote for the Huffington Post.

Vetri starts by asking why journalists "always pander to the most basic, low-brow instincts of the readers" while calling social media "the enemy of relevant food journalism."

(Just as he used social media to promote the article.)

In describing the state of affairs as a "crisis," Vetri seems to confuse restaurant news - the box-score reporting of the business end of dining - with restaurant criticism.

It's the critics whom Vetri has the biggest beef with.

Vetri says the reviewers have "abandoned their sense of discretion" as they continue a "campaign to make the lives of chefs more miserable."

As an example of this, Vetri cites the "journalistic bullying" of critics who "reserve the right to go back a couple months later and with one visit change the ratings however they deem fit."

He refers, no doubt, to The Inquirer's Craig LaBan, who recently demoted Osteria in Moorestown after a return visit not long after the initial review.

(That implies that a restaurant review - really a snapshot of a restaurant's performance - has to stand up, like a movie review.)

Vetri also says critics "no longer believe in standards for restaurants. One that invests heavily in a wine or cocktail program is no better than one that only serves food. A full-service restaurant is the same as a sandwich shop, pizzeria or even a hummus stand. Nice hummus at a counter? Give the joint three stars."

(Zing. This argument may make you feel a bit Dizengoff - er, dizzy.)

"Critics illogically argue that they review each place based on how well it executes a particular concept," Vetri writes. "With that thinking, a McDonald's could conceivably get 4 stars as it strives to be the very best greasy, fat-laden, diabetes-causing place in the universe. Even the Golden Globes is intelligent enough to have separate categories for actor/actress for Drama and Comedy, because the organizers understand that the two simply cannot be rated by the same standard."

Vetri also thinks critics are taking themselves too seriously, citing their stories about dropping their anonymity.

"The truth: They never had any," Vetri writes. "As if we didn't know who every one of them are when they come into our restaurants, wearing wigs or dark glasses. Those stories demonstrate dual flaws, that they are both deluded and self-important."

See the piece here.