It’s not unusual for a critic to draw fire for a review. It’s also not unusual for the newspaper to publish articles that later require corrections.
Therefore, it puzzled a couple of readers when a harsh review of Prime Steak & Seafood in Torrington was removed from Courant.com. The article appeared in the Flavor section Feb. 28.
Yes, there was a backlash from the restaurant’s management as well as from Torrington boosters. Yes, there were admitted errors of fact: the reviewer, Elissa Altman, referred to “companions” when only one guest accompanied her to the restaurant, and the price of appetizers were wrong. However, as Bob Bailin of Hamden pointed out, “The Courant has published hundreds of articles in the past with errors, some severe, that needed correcting, but I don’t recall any that were pulled from the website. I would like an explanation why this review was pulled and not merely corrected.”
A lengthy correction published March 8 on Page A4 and again March 13 in the Flavor section explaining, among other things, that Altman stands by her review didn’t help Bailin’s or reader Thomas Hodgkin’s understanding of the matter.
Hodgkin, of Norfolk, wrote in an e-mail Thursday, “As it appears to have been settled, the truth is fuzzy and appears less important than simply pleasing the offended restaurant.”
Nothing is ever simple, however. As with any news story, editors take questions about accuracy and fairness seriously, regardless of the source of those questions. The facts on which an opinion is based have to be unimpeachable and verifiable, from the first paragraph down to expense reports.
Naedine Hazell, assistant managing editor for features and business, would only say, “There were standards that we thought were explicit but apparently were not.”
For her part, Altman, an author and a blogger for The Huffington Post who resigned from her free-lance position with The Courant after being questioned about the review, had a few counterpoints regarding the “Setting The Record Straight” notices.
“While the paper, in its correction, stated that I only tasted a few dishes and based my review on those, I tasted nine dishes: two appetizers, two entrees, two desserts, three sides,” Altman wrote in an e-mail.
“While the implication was that I did not taste everything I wrote about, I did, with the exception of a suspect rib-eye, which a neighboring diner was eating. In this case, I did not write of its flavor but of its apparent tenderness, as evidenced by the manner in which the diner was eating it.
“The restaurateur maintains that no one near me was eating a rib-eye. Having attended cooking school, I’m almost certain that that was what I was watching this man eat. Could it have been a porterhouse? Sure. But it looked too small to me to be a porterhouse.”
She also said, “While I referred in my review to my ‘dining companions,’ I was indeed dining with just one other person. This is, to my understanding, accepted and commonplace reviewing practice done both for the sake of maintaining anonymity … and when the budget places strict limitations on both the number of guests a reviewer is able to bring, and the number of times a reviewer is able to visit.”
Anonymity and budget limits aside, misrepresenting how many participated in a dining experience for a published review is not acceptable, in my opinion.
Going forward, Hazell said she is considering the critic’s guidelines suggested by the Association of Food Journalists ( www.afjonline.com). At least two of the guidelines strike me as particularly pertinent:
“Ethics. Good restaurant reviewing is good journalism. Reviewers should subscribe to the same accepted standards of professional responsibility as other journalists.
“Negative reviews. Negative reviews are fine, as long as they’re accurate and fair. Critics must always be conscious that they are dealing with people’s livelihoods. Negative reviews, especially, should be based on multiple visits and a broad exploration of the restaurant’s menu. Following a consistent reviewing policy without deviation may protect a critic from charges of bias or favoritism, while providing a platform from which to defend the review.”
