Hasta La Gadget!

Misconceptions about domestic violence can turn the justice system against survivors, often with devastating results.

1. The Panickers: provide constant weather status updates, bread and milk status updates, traffic updates and temperature updates. Can also be Photographers (see #7), by dint of Instagram shots of stopped traffic, empty supermarket shelves, outdoor thermometers which are snow-capped and icicle-adorned, and car dashboards with frightening temperature read-outs. Such panic is not limited to weather-related events, but also extends to deadly viruses, state testing, and hamburger meat recalls.

2. The Curmudgeons: originally hail from Canada, the Northeast, or the Midwest, and virtually roll their eyes at any precipitous snow-related hand-wringing. Anything less than six feet of accumulation is, by their estimation, a dusting, since in their day, they merely donned Speedos and flip-flops to frolick in the fluffy white stuff — after they went to a full day of school, of course, because they’re from Buffalo and BUFFALO NEVER CLOSED, GODDAMNIT. Often refer to blizzards as “Monday.”

3. The #Hashtaggers: make everything into a joke by typing run-on sentences and the symbol that previous generations so fondly called the #poundsign. #snOMG #fuckyouwinter #thanksalotobama

4. The Snow-Poseurs: find any sort of discussion about snowstorms terribly bourgeois, and post instead about how lame it is to be concerned about two feet of snow. Usually freelancers with excellent wi-fi connection, or those with a less-than-fifteen minute door-to-door commute which is not reliant on public transportation. Often post about Sundance documentaries, brunch, and how awful they think the David Foster Wallace film will be, even though no one — including the director — has seen the final cut yet.

5. The Sunshine-Staters: reside in California, Florida or Arizona, and offer social media posts of condolences and heartfelt expressions wishing safe travels to their Northeast brethren enduring inclement weather, while they sit in their lanais in requisite tankinis. With a sweater draped over their shoulders. Because it’s like, 68 degrees, and they lack the self-awareness to refrain from typing “Brrrrr!” Also, because they secretly fear that this will be the year we Northerners finally turn on them, and won’t let them sleep on our pull-out couches when they realize that they miss the city, and need a place to stay so they can take their kids to see “Wicked” on Broadway.

6. The Northeastern Ex-Pats Now Living in Southern States: whine about their “pay-attention-to-me!” dusting of snow and spin-outs on Georgia roads. Because they’re New Yorkers at heart, are bitter about having to order Brooklyn-water bagels and good deli online, and no longer have #Snowmageddons to complain about while they play golf ten months out of the year.

7. The Photographers: document snowmen and snowball fights and glinting icicles and snow-swept walkways and yardsticks stuck in four-foot snow drifts and cups of latte accented with frothy hearts and snow-bedecked bare branches and ice skates “haphazardly” kicked off on exquisite tile floors — please, people, it looks like a stylist did that for Architectural Digest. Makes you want to brave the elements and drive over to said photographers’ houses and smash their smartphones with the L.L. Bean boot knockoff you bought at Target because fucking L.L. Bean ran out of their waterproof boots three weeks before Christmas. A hundred years in business and you people didn’t see that retro trend coming?

8. The Stoners: Clearly high or living under a rock, because this is the first they’re hearing about any kind of snowstorm. WHAT?!? SNOW?!? WHEN?!? WHAT MONTH IS THIS?!?

Food journalism in today’s world is all about a “best” list, a “what’s hot and what’s not” or a restaurant ranking system. It’s about what we need more of, less of and what we better start doing right away. They tell us a chef’s favorite holiday treat, favorite knife, favorite gadget, favorite song, favorite thing to do after work, favorite late-night snack, favorite morning ritual. Instead of stories, we get inventories. Is there any other form of journalism that continually rates things, judges them and then packages them up in a neat list? What is this insane business about ratings and lists? It’s true, people read them, they click on them, but why should journalists always pander to the most basic, low-brow instincts of the readers?

To me, that constitutes a crisis. I understand that print media is a difficult endeavor, especially in the food world. We lost Gourmet magazine and La Cucina Italiana. Newspapers are working with skeleton crews in order to just survive. The select few that remain are desperately trying to be relevant in this increasingly digital world where clickbait is king. But what is relevant food journalism today? That’s worth trying to figure out.

Social media — just as much as lost advertising revenue — is the enemy of relevant food journalism. Why would a reader wait around for a thoughtful and analytical article when he can obtain an immediate jolt from a cool, hip Twitter feed or even better, an Instagram account? He can read constantly updated online foodie sites like Eater, GrubStreet and Zagat and see all of the latest and greatest lists, hot spots, gossip, closings, chef divorces and breakups. With the addition of sites like Yelp, Chowhound and Urbanspoon, he has instant access to the hottest restaurant openings and so-called reviews from anyone who chooses to go online and write one.

Unfortunately, to combat the curse of instant access, real journalists have been forced to downgrade their standards, and are now in the business of giving younger readers their much-needed immediate buzz as opposed to producing more thoughtful — and thought-provoking –content. In the process of lowering their standards they have done irreparable harm to the once-elegant business of reviewing restaurants. They have made traditional restaurant reviews all but irrelevant.

It wasn’t always like this. It used to be a basic and admirable process. First, someone opens up a restaurant. Then, someone who has restaurant and/or cooking experience and knows how to write well, visits the establishment numerous times, describes it and gives it a rating. Usually it’s stars, but here in Philadelphia, it’s bells — the influence of the Liberty Bell. The important thing to note here is that the professional reviewer sets the bar. He or she has carefully defined parameters: food, wine, service, ambiance and hospitality are among the most important. The restaurant waits anxiously for the review, which for most of my professional life was considered the benchmark of success. A positive review coupled with a well-written article, meant phone calls galore the next day, as well as a full reservations book.

Vetri opened in 1999. When we were well-reviewed, we could hardly handle all the phone calls. It was nearly incomprehensible. I answered phones in the morning. When Jeff Benjamin, my partner, arrived later, I started cooking and he took over the phones. We went from doing 4-6 covers on a Monday night to doing 40. Then in 2001, when we got our 4th bell (star) it was more of the same. We were forced to hire two extra receptionists to handle the onslaught; certainly a good problem to have. Even 8 years ago when we opened Osteria, our first casual restaurant, there was a significant change after a good review. But that was then and this is now. Osteria, for us, was the last review that moved the needle. Today in Philadelphia and in most other big cities, a major newspaper, local magazine or blog review literally all bear the same weight. That is to say, they all have minimal effect. In a city like NYC, where the New York Times is all-powerful, it may be slightly different. But even so, many chefs with restaurants there tell me that a good article may drive traffic for a week or so, but after that the uptick in business is basically a rounding error.

The reason is simple: All reviews carry the same weight, and are the same in importance. A newspaper review is buried under massive amounts of opinion and critiquing coming from every direction. And reviewers have responded by doing their very worst. Instead of changing with the times, finding ways to set a new standard, they have descended into the abyss of shock-and-awe journalism — anything to draw readers’ attention, and to encourage them to share on social media. This in my mind brings about a few major issues.

First, major critics have abandoned their sense of discretion. They 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.

Critics illogically argue that they review each place based on how well it executes a particular concept. 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 standards.

Secondly, it seems as if writers have become exactly the same as “egotarian chefs.” Alan Richman coined the phrase in a GQ article called “The Rise of Egotarian Cuisine”. However, he might as well have been talking about food writers. In fact, if you substitute a couple words here and there, you can make the same argument.

He writes:

“…something is wrong in our restaurant kitchens (food reviews) lately. Suddenly, a new breed of chefs (writers) seem to have decided that they should be cooking (writing) not for your pleasure but for their own.”

Or this:

“The food (writing) is intellectual, yet at the same time often thoughtless. It goes directly from mind to plate (paper), straddling the line between the creative and the self indulgent. The dishes (articles) that fail have little to do with the foundations of cuisine (writing) as we know it, as taught by master chefs (great food writers) or in culinary (writing) academies. When it works, the chefs (food writers) have been classically schooled and their worst impulses reined in.”

Illustrative of how seriously food critics are taking themselves these days is the recent epidemic of stories they have been publishing about themselves, announcing they are dropping their anonymity. The truth: They never had any. 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.

By far the least admirable aspect of reviewing today is the need to express every opinion in superlatives. No nuances allowed. Everything is either awesome or awful. If it’s not the best, it’s the worst. If it’s awesome, they are screaming with joy. If it’s awful, they are howling with rage. Subtlety is nonexistent. They are no longer writing for the purpose of informing the reader. They are writing to take center stage, to promote themselves and their agenda. Aspiring critics who once studied writing, journalism and the art of creative expression are now using words and expressions such as “eeewwww,” and “seriously yum,” just like those on social media sites with which they are competing. Many of them would do a service to journalism by starting their own personal blogs, or critiquing solely from their personal social media profiles rather than pretending to be actual journalists. That way they will no longer be restricted by principles.

You might wonder why a chef/restaurateur is writing an article about writers. It might feel to you as though I am biting the media hand that feeds me. This is my attempt to come clean, to speak for all of us in the business. We talk about this all the time amongst ourselves. We discuss the food media. We’re kind of obsessed with it. But we don’t make it public. It’s time we did.

Some of what we talk about has gotten better. The John Marianis of the world, the writers who lived in an ethical netherworld, are fading away. They are practically nonexistent. So too are the extremely questionable, maybe even litigable, tactics of Yelp. At least they operate out in the open, and everyone reads the reviews posted there with extreme skepticism.

The next big question is what the major critics will do next in their continuing campaign to make the lives of chefs more miserable. In Philadelphia, they have threatened that once they have published a review and graded a restaurant, they reserve the right to go back a couple months later and with one visit change the ratings however they deem fit. Sounds a little bit like journalistic bullying to me.

One thing is for certain, regardless of which direction food journalism takes, I’m still happy to earn my reputation the old-fashioned way, one good meal at a time.

NEW HOPE, Minn. (AP) — Two police officers who were shot by a gunman inside a suburban Minneapolis city building are expected to recover.

Two newly sworn-in officers and others were shot at Monday night as they left a New Hope City Council meeting. Two officers were hit, and others returned fire and killed the gunman, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Mike Carlson said. The injured officers are in good condition at a local hospital, Carlson said Monday night. It was not immediately clear whether the officers hit were the new ones.

The sound of at least six gunshots outside the council chambers can be heard on a video recording of the council meeting, which was still ongoing.

City Council member John Elder, a police officer, is seen on the video drawing his handgun and shouting at others in the room to take cover.

“Get down! Get down! Everybody get down!” Elder shouts.

Someone else in the room can be heard saying, “That went right through the door. Somebody got shot.”

City Council members can be seen taking cover behind the desk. Elder points his gun at the chamber door.

Council members were later escorted to safety. Carlson said authorities are not seeking any other suspects and did not identify the gunman or disclose a possible motive.

ATHENS, Greece (AP) — A Greek economist and outspoken bailout critic has been named as finance minister in the country’s new left-wing government.

The 53-year-old Yanis Varoufakis was named as Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’ governing Syriza party announced a Cabinet that includes officials from its coalition ally, the anti-bailout and right-wing Independent Greeks.

Panos Kammenos, the Independent Greeks leader, was named defense minister.

Varoufakis has been a vocal critic of Greece’s bailout agreements, arguing that repayment of the country’s huge rescue package loans should be linked to growth, a policy change he argues would benefit eurozone lenders.

He has held teaching positions in Britain, Australia, Sweden, Greece and the United States.

Syriza won a landmark general election victory Sunday after campaigning on a pledge to renegotiate the bailout deal and seek forgiveness of more than half the debt.

Moody’s ratings agency on Tuesday described the election result as “credit negative” because it would prolong risks to financing, economic growth and banks’ liquidity.

The main stock index in Athens fell on the news, and was down 5.4 percent in afternoon trading, amid losses across Europe.

Tsipras chose economist and veteran left-wing politician Giannis Dragasakis as deputy minister and expanded powers for the ministries of development, environment, interior and public works — reducing the number of ministries from 19 to 11.

The new Cabinet will be sworn in later Tuesday.

Varoufakis had revealed his appointment earlier Tuesday in a private blog post.

“Naturally, my blog posts will become more infrequent and shorter,” he wrote. “But I do hope they compensate with juicier views, comments and insights.”