August 14, 2008
Food Bloggers on Newspaper Payrolls: Do Readers Suffer?
It was April, 2006, and a Seattle Times article about online food writers felt obliged to begin with an explanation of what blogs were all about. We've come a long, long way.
This week, an essay by a food blogger who writes as TheGastroGnome ("She Eats and Tells"), contends that Seattle foodies are ill-served by print journalism. Nancy Leson at the Times no longer writes specifically for the paper, she reprints posts to her blog, All You Can Eat. (News flash: Sue McCown has been laid off by Starbucks!) Ditto Rebekah Denn, Devouring Seattle at the Pee Eye. (News flash: the Obama-Rama, an hour before Seattlest's virtually identical post). Denn actually blogs in addition to her regular (print) duties. Meanwhile, interns fill up Seattle Weekly's blog, Voracious. She barely mentions the Stranger (where, as it happens, the chief restaurant reviewer, Bethany Jean Clement, was recently named managing editor).
Gnomey (as the GastroGnome is called by a friend in the comments) gets a couple of things wrong. Leslie Kelly, the freelance restaurant critic for the Pee Eye, has no roots in Memphis; that's not the reason for her provincialism. (She grew up in Bremerton.) Her husband, John Nelson, was working for the Memphis Commercial Appeal when he was recruited to be the Pee Eye's assistant managing editor.
Nor is she entirely right about the Stranger's approach to food. Sure, running a hookah bar review in the restaurant section was silly, but this week's food page is a terrific roundup of lower-priced alternatives to expensive restaurants. That's something a single blogger can't do: assign half a dozen writers to different aspects of a complex topic.
The power of blogging is the willingness to share one's knowledge. Bishop knows about Hidmo's Eritrean (not Ethiopian) buffet lunch and wonders why writer Kristin Dizon didn't mention it in her review of Habesha. Some reporters google compulsively before they start typing, others don't. (Urbanspoon lists 24 African restaurants, by the way.) But online reviews, whether by unpaid bloggers, corporate PR departments or salaried newsies, last forever.
Bemoaning the passage of a substantial local food section, subsidized by grocery advertising, misses the point. News of trendy, cutting-edge stuff has always been in professional journals and glossy magazines subsidized by equipment manufacturers and advertisers of luxury goods. And those editors, these days, get their cutting-edge news from the folks closest to the ground: bloggers.
So the result of "required blogging" means that short-staffed newspapers produce less original material (fewer original articles, less original research) for their Wednesday food pages and more original ("anecdotal") blog entries throughout the week. The advertiser-supported newspaper food section (Safeway! QFC! Albertson's!) is a shadow of its former self, replaced by eyeball-supported blogs (drug stores! cars! politicians!).
We think that's a good thing, although we drool with envy when we realize that Leson and Denn get paid (salary, expenses) to do what we do for peanuts.



[ report this ]
Sorry to be unfair...but I changed the part about Kelly after I saw this.
I stand by the rest of it, though. I agree with your point about the Stranger's column this week--That is what food sections SHOULD be doing with their advantage, last week was an example of what they shouldn't. Unfortunately the Stranger falls in to the latter category more often than the former.
My issue with Dizon's review wasn't nitpicking details or lack of googling skill, it was further proof that more complete research and familiarity with the cuisine should be a part of the review. Like I thought about the Hookah bar review by someone who doesn't like tobacco, it's like sending a vegetarian to review a BBQ joint. Why bother?
Anyway, I think it is more of an epidemic of all sections than a food-oriented attack, part of the demise of the newspaper. This is just the part that effects me!
Thanks for your thoughts!
[ report this ]
This is not a problem affecting Seattle paper. Nationally papers are cutting back on food writers.
Like art teachers in public school, they are the easiest to do away with.
It is sad, but until someone figures out how to make newspapers profitable again, you'll just have to rely on the web.
[ report this ]
Sorry, meant to say, "This is not a problem affecting just Seattle papers."
[ report this ]
I've had a couple of stiff drinks, having been inspired to mix a Pegu Club by the SF Chronicle's food email, so am not completely sure what the hell I think at the moment. That said, I read Nancy Leson's blog pretty often when it started, before realizing that the info she had, media contacts and all, was really nothing I couldn't get here or at the other local blogs. So yeah, the fact that she still gets a real salary (I assume) when you guys don't, is pretty damn bothersome.
[ report this ]
Simonian, here are things I have gotten from Nancy Leson's blog: Learned Matt sold Matt's in the Market, got an inside look at the James Beard Awards in New York, got a cool lesson on how to make a loaf of bread. Today I learned about Seth Caswell's new restaurant. Maybe if you actually read her blog you would see it's information and a personality you don't get anywhere else. Until they copy it from her.
[ report this ]
Have you read the rest of the drivel she writes on her "blog"? There is a reason why professionals get paid while people who write like Naomi Bishop do not.
"Gnomey" is nothing more than the typical self-assigned "foodie" who worships at Bourdain's feet, eats all the foods she feels "real foodies" should eat (i.e. offal, chicken feet, foie gras), looks down on all those who do not share her same taste for textbook "foodie" items (especially "white people"), and cannot hide her bitter jealousy of those making a living at something she so desires yet so painfully is unable to succeed at.
Curse you Ronald for sending me to this sorry excuse for a blog.