The Taste by Vir Sanghvi: Is the era of the anonymous restaurant critic over?

Hindustan Times

a day ago

Is the cult of the anonymous restaurant critic dead? I think it probably is. What read like a death notice appeared this week in The New York Times.
Foodies will know that the Times has long prided itself on anonymous reviewers. Part of the legend surrounding reviews by such former critics as Mimi Sheraton and Ruth Reichl was that they were never recognised at restaurants. Some even wore wigs and other disguises to remain unrecognisable - and then, published books about their adventures in anonymity.
Well, all that's in the past.
Two days ago, The New York Times announced that it had finally appointed full time successors to Pete Wells, its respected reviewer who stepped down in 2024 after trying to preserve his anonymity (with varying degrees of success) for years.
The new critics are Tejal Rao and Ligaya Mishan. Both are well regarded food writers but they are hardly unknown or anonymous: For instance, I have praised Rao's writing in this column before.
Sensibly the Times has decided to come clean. The announcement was accompanied by pictures and videos of the new critics.
So, what happened to Ruth Reichl's disguises and Mimi Sheraton's masks (yes, she actually wore one to appear on a TV show angering a chef who was also on the show and tried to pull it off)? What happened to all that stuff about how reviewers had to be anonymous so that they could have the same experience as the average guest?
Well, the Times conceded that the lack of anonymity could make a difference. 'It is true that there are things restaurant staff members can do once they realize a critic is in their restaurant,' it wrote.
Also Read | The Taste by Vir Sanghvi: Why Indian chefs hide their recipes unlike Western chefs
'Service can be more attentive (though that's not always a good thing); the critic can be seated at a great table; the kitchen can cook each dish twice (at least) and send out the best versions in generous portions.'
They could have added more. If a critic is recognised then it is rarely the line cook who makes his or her food. It's the head chef who will put every dish together personally. The best ingredients will be used: The freshest fish, the finest steak and so on.
So yes, it does make a difference: Up to a point.
But there are two crucial factors we need to consider. The first was famously summed up by Henri Gault and Christian Millau who founded the Gault Millau guide in France in the 1960s. Yes, they said, it is always possible to get a bad meal at a great restaurant. It happens all the time and one has to take that into account. But it is impossible to get a good meal at a bad restaurant. Even if you are recognised (as Gault and Millau always were) a bad restaurant has very little room for manoeuvre.
Even The New York Times's own critics have used a variation of this explanation. In her book The Fourth Star about the New York restaurant Daniel's quest for the top rating from The New York Times, Leslie Brenner writes about how William Grimes who was then the critic for the Times was recognised when he came to Daniel to review it.
After a rave review appeared she called him to ask whether his lack of anonymity could have affected the kind of meal he was served. 'A restaurant can't make itself better than what it is,' he responded. 'At a restaurant of that calibre I don't think they are serving two kinds of food to two kinds of people.' Which is basically the Gault-Millau explanation all over again.
As the Times now concedes the lack of anonymity does make a difference. But it doesn't make as great a difference as Mimi Sheraton or Ruth Reichl believed.
Pete Wells tried to be anonymous but most New York restaurants put his picture up in their kitchens so he was usually recognised. But that did not stop him from doing hatchet jobs on such great restaurants as Eleven Madison Park (three Michelin stars), Per Se (also three stars) and most famously Peter Luger, a New York legend.
Basically, if you know how to do your job, you can tell how good or bad a restaurant is even if you are not anonymous.
In the UK, for instance, restaurant critics are not anonymous (with the notable exception of Marina O'Loughlin who was rarely photographed during her time as a reviewer)
The two greatest critics of the last 50 years, Fay Maschler and AA Gill were recognised on the streets, not just when they went to restaurants.
The lack of anonymity doesn't necessarily mean they always eat well. Years ago, I went with Maschler to Le Chabanais a much-hyped London restaurant opened by trendy French chef Inaki Aziparte. The food was crap and Maschler was unenthusiastic in her review. When AA Gill said much the same sort of thing, the restaurant closed.
So, the general view that critics always eat well is wrong.
There is a second factor behind the Times's decision to shed the anonymity of its reviewers. The days when the only reviews that mattered appeared in mainstream media are over. We are now bombarded with opinions about restaurants on social media. Many of these opinions are sincere even if they come from people who are not particularly knowledgeable about food. But many of them come from so-called influencers who are not bound by the same standards as mainstream media journalists and will happily accept financial considerations from restaurants (usually through agencies that are paid to secure social media publicity).
Over the years the share of voice of PR companies and the influencers they hire has grown to unprecedented levels. Many of these influencers then vote in lists of great chefs or 50
Best Restaurants. As a result, many restaurants have vast budgets dedicated to securing good influencer reviews and places on these lists. Chefs and restaurateurs know how the lists are compiled but they also know that a high position on any list will vastly increase their business.
In such a situation, newspapers must hire the best critics who have written well about food, understand restaurants and will cut through the lying hype.
Such people do exist but they are rarely anonymous these days. They have appeared on food shows, have written and publicised books, have made their own videos and have social media profiles.
Once upon a time it was possible for the Times to take say, a relatively anonymous foreign correspondent who had just returned from Rome and appoint him as the restaurant critic.
You can't do that any longer. You need experts with experience and some standing of their own to tell the world's greatest restaurants and the world's best chefs what they are doing wrong. (Or right.)
Anonymity works well for influencers you have never heard of. But not for serious critics.
There is, of course, one exception to this general rule. Michelin is now a global organisation. Its inspectors are always anonymous even though they are rigorously trained and must eat at least 300 restaurant meals a year to keep track of trends and quality. Many operate internationally. If you run an Indian restaurant in Singapore you might be visited by an inspector from London.
Chefs try very hard to spot Michelin inspectors but rarely succeed mainly because all the cliches you hear about them are not true: They aren't all French or Paris-based, they don't necessarily eat alone, they don't deliberately drop napkins on the floor to see how long it takes the servers to pick them up etc.
Michelin is now the last bastion of anonymous and independent reviewing. It judges quality and consistency and not trendiness.
That's why it's the one recognition that chefs respect.
Let's hope it stays that way.