We're going to get a bit John Lennon on you today. Feeling pained already? Then imagine if there were no restaurant critics, only promo material. Imagine there were no food bloggers, only self-penned love-letters on TripAdvisor. Imagine there was no TripAdvisor!!! [silent yet heartfelt "YES!!!" echoes throughout Restaurant Land] or even us (Booooo!!!). Imagine that even - and let's go all the way to 1984 with this - you couldn't even voice your own personal subjective opinion on a restaurant because they will Sue. Your. Ass. Off.
Now we're on board with that tranquil vision, let us turn to recent events in Australia. For those of you not with your nose to the print of the Sydney Morning Herald, we'll quickly set the scene. Back in 2003, then-food critic Matthew Evans wrote an excoriating, honest (perhaps a tad brutally so, but still) review of Coco Roco, a new and vairy expensive waterfront restaurant. 6 months later it was all down the tubes. Two of the owners - very cross sisters - decided to sue for defamation. 11 years - two jury trials, one judge trial, two appeals and much much more - later and they have successfully sued the paper for £349,000 (AUS$623,526). The case hung on a single, vaguely-penned sentence that - in essence - in fact stated Coco Roco was made up of expensive Coco and bistro-style Roco and that the critic was eating in the former but that the defence surmised somehow failed to point out that when criticising the restaurant, he was in fact only criticising one not both. Having not eaten in Roco, Evans could not possibly judge its quality and this was not made clear in the review...
Interestingly, without banging on too much about the ins and outs, the defamation points asserted were that the critic said the food was unpalatable; there was some bad service; and that the sisters were incompetent as restaurateurs [because the chef was incompetent]. A judge ruled the first two criteria inadmissible because clearly Evans can judge himself if food was unpalatable to his own palate and that service was slow or efficient. The third proved the crux of the matter. Post-trial, Evans stated it was a sad day for food journalism. Incidentally, he no longer reviews and lives in Tasmania which seems punishment enough for having a distinguished palate.
It is perhaps a matter of living and dying by the sword if you own a restaurant, but imagine (here we go again) if you had no food journalism to help you promote your restaurants. How do you help the paying public distinguish your very fine establishment and locally-sourced seasonal produce from the cruddy steak and Chilean asparagus joint across the street? Why should they believe you? It's human nature to follow a seasoned opinion; it takes a pioneer to strike out on their own. As AA Gill once said, more or less, it doesn't matter if you get rid of restaurant reviewers; they're journalists and they can always go on and write about something else, but what would restaurants do without the publicity?
Restaurateurs may rant and rail at the current Instagram food fad, food bloggers, Twitter and professional reviewers, but without their help, they wouldn't be on the map at all. Even rantingly bad reviews gain a certain rubbernecker notoriety; if it was silent still and silent all, how loud would you have to shout to get yourself noticed?
