Your comments are right on point. I can't think of a better collection of food media per capita anywhere. We all get better if we hold each other to a higher standard. Keep pushing for that, an influential person like you can change our world for the better. Thank you.

I already have a feeling of regret for posting this but I feel like you're asking for it. I read all your posts and was a faithful listener to Chowhounds since the early years so I certainly have appreciated your expertise and contribution to the TC food scene and my own knowledge.

However, much of what butters your bread (pardon the pun) these days is dependent upon the exact "Foodiots" that you mention. Although "Bizarre Foods" is a nice adventure around the world, it thrives on sensationalism. Additionally, many of your posts are filled more with rumor and opinion than pure food review. Personally, I enjoy some of both. I'm not questioning your expertise but would hardly call you a purist.

So, if what you you're looking for is honesty, then it's important that you get some. I also hope none of us forget that there would be a lot fewer restaurants for which to provide "legitimate critical commentary" and a lot fewer people paying the bills (yourself included) if it weren't for the "foodiots".

It's true that there's bloggers and eaters out there who talk a whole lot about food without really knowing much about it. And yeah, maybe they're annoying at times. But I think it's counterproductive to label them "foodiot" or anything else, really. Think about it - after a long period of a pretty lame culinary culture, there are now large numbers of people who care about their food, are interested in where it comes from and how it's made, who want to learn more and talk to others about it. Isn't this good for the restaurant/food industry in general?

I think the issue about local media is completely separate - the problem you cite there isn't that people are "foodiots" or don't know what they're talking about, but that they soft-pedal their criticism. That may be true of some blogs, I don't know - most of the ones I read often feature mixed or negative reviews.

Basically, what Aaron F said...

I think the argument that people who are merely enthusiasts and lack discernment are essential parts of the growth of good food and eating is weak. Opinionated people are tedious at times, and well-meaning people making mediocre food or third-rate "local" wine are often earnest, kind, and endearing. But where this eventually gets you is a populace that can't tell the difference between what's good and bad or why.

Look at the comments on many of this community's primary food blogs. Stuff like "thanks for the review!" or "great photos, awesome!". I mean, if that's all you've got to offer, why bother. We're not encouraging toddlers here.

And frankly, many of the current movements in food, particularly the local food movement, have become something akin to a religion, bowing at the altar of Michael Pollan, and full of eager acolytes spouting its benefits even when some of them, particularly environmental, are really questionable. Zealots are useless no matter which side they are on, but between the zealots and the "foodiots" the food world right now is tipping into tedium.

Just because you're a farmer, a locavore chef, a gluten-free baker, doesn't mean you're automatically due our admiration or interest, but that's the mantra the MSM and the foodie blogs have been spouting. I'd rather watch a Hell's Kitchen marathon than read another interview with a farmer, frankly.

To break down Aaron F's and my argument further for you: the more people are enthusiastic about food, the more money they will spend on it, and the more restaurants, shops, etc. will be able to succeed in our market. Sure, some of them might be mediocre. And, gasp, some people might think these mediocre places are good, but so what? Doesn't that give people like AZ, Dara, and Rachel Hutton something to write about? And isn't it possible that people new to the food scene will gradually learn more about it?

Calling other people stupid just strikes me as sort of a playground tactic - rather like making fun of their names - but I guess a food critic's gotta do something to make himself feel special.

Part of the lack of negative reviews is because the magazines in town only come out once a month, and tend to only print the postivie reviews (as a reader - given a choice of a review on where I should go and a review of where I shouldn't go... I'd probably take the review of where I should go).

I've been disappointed that our local food critics don't take advantage of their blogs to post more about where I shouldn't go. Seems like a natural.

As for the food blogs: I'd hate to see them savage places based on one bad visit. So I tend to take most of it with as much authority as I would a review from my next-door neighbor.

For those who choose to make their food views public, I think it's important to articulate your opinion:

a) boldly

b) in accordance with your food knowledge

I've been blogging for awhile, and have said some things that, now that my palate has improved, are a bit embarrassing to have written. By the same token, I don't think I went beyond my comfort zone.

Further, I think I have steered my friends toward some great restaurants, and away from some terrible restaurants. If I also steered a couple of folks to a relative mediocrity, I can live with that.

Yes, it sucks that people who have absurd ideas about what constitutes good food continue to shout from the rooftops. It's worse when those people get paid to do so. I still think the overall benefit accrues to those restaurants which excel.