Burning Question: What Does Bill Addison Look Like?
The other day in the comments section here, one of our loyal readers, “Logan,” left this note:
Ok, does Bill Addison look like Jody from Family Affair…b/c that’s what i picture every time i read one of his reviews now.
He’s confused because I call the DMN critic Freckle Face. Why? Because he has lots of freckles on his face? Maybe. Would I recognized Bill Addison if I saw him in a restaurant? Oh, yes. You see, I’ve had dinner with Freckle Face. And lunch. I won’t tell you if he’s tall or SHORT. I won’t tell you if his hair is dark or LIGHT. No sirree, Bill.
So, Mr. French jokes aside, I ask the question: Is it important for food critics to remain faceless in their community? I have lots to say on this, but I want to hear what you think. It’s a hot topic all across the country. So, let’s rumble.
9 Comments to “Burning Question: What Does Bill Addison Look Like?”
Leave a Reply
All material copyright © 2008 D Magazine. All rights reserved.
This is from a layman’s perspective, but I would think faceless is better, if at all possible. B.A. noted in his recent review of Stephan Pyles that the servers swarmed his table once he was recognized. Seems like the best review would be one that conveys an experience as close as possible to what we average Joes would experience.
Now once Nancy makes it on to Season 5 of NFNS, I can of course see where anonymity might be a problem…
Ruth Reichel’s book Garlic and Sapphires: The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise is a good example of how much more exciting it is for critics to remain anonymous. Plus, who doesn’t like the opportunity to sport a wig from time to time?
I hope they pick me, seriously. I fear I am too old.
I think faceless is best because that’s how the rest of us (true patrons) are treated. It’s really the only way to honestly guage a restaurant’s service AND food….atmosphere, not so much.
Faceless, absolutely. Sure you cannot make a two star chef into a five star chef just by walking in the door to do your review but as a known reviewer you will be given the best piece of fish, the best table, the most experienced server, etc. Faceless may not be necessary for the top restaurants or the bottom restaurants but for the middle tier restaurants it could make all the difference.
Saw the same review of Stephen Pyles the other Drew saw and faceless obviously is best. You have to catch the restaurant as if they aren’t cooking or serving for a critic or (duh) they will micro-manage the experience. That’s not what the rest of us get.
too late, abacus saw him coming for their review…
no such thing as a faceless reviewer(particularly any high profile publication)…too much ego on the reviewer side and too much at stake for the restaurants.
The ethics guidelines for the Association of Food Journalists states that “Reviews should be conducted anonymously whenever possible. Critics should experience the restaurant just as ordinary patrons do. Reservations should be made in a name other than that of the reviewer and meals should be paid for using cash or credit cards in a name other than the critic.”
Critics who go out of their way to make themselves recognizable are serving themselves and not their readers. Nancy Nichols has done just that, making public appearances, posting photos of herself on the internet, making television appearances (sometimes appearing on video in the restaurants she reviews), and flaunting her personal friendships and travels with local chefs. It’s unethical and makes her opinions less useful to readers.