{"id":10164,"date":"2015-03-11T16:23:09","date_gmt":"2015-03-11T21:23:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/news.medill.northwestern.edu\/chicago\/?p=10164"},"modified":"2015-03-11T17:39:38","modified_gmt":"2015-03-11T22:39:38","slug":"giving-up-the-ghost-critics-step-into-spotlight-to-stay-relevant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.medill.northwestern.edu\/chicago\/giving-up-the-ghost-critics-step-into-spotlight-to-stay-relevant\/","title":{"rendered":"Giving up the ghost: critics step into spotlight to stay relevant"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Karin Vandraiss<\/p>\n

In January, Jonathan Gold of the LA Times became the latest restaurant critic to make headlines by revealing his long-protected persona to the public.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"LA<\/a>
LA Times restaurant critic Jonathan Gold, the latest to abandon his anonymity. (Marie Astrid Gonzalez\/Los Angeles Times)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In what is now rather formulaic fashion, Gold penned an essay detailing years upholding the pretense of anonymity, accompanied by a headshot sans his usual kitschy disguise. Like many critics, Gold has acknowledged the not-so-secret nature of his identity for some time, writing that he has become \u201cadept at pretending not to notice that a restaurant staff is pretending not to notice me noticing them noticing me.\u201d<\/p>\n

New York Magazine\u2019s Adam Platt started the trend in 2013, stating that it was high time for his readers to learn what restaurateurs had known for years, and to end his role in the \u201cdated charade\u201d that is the anonymous critic. Reviewers from San Francisco to Chicago followed in quick succession, all claiming to have come to the same conclusion: no one is anonymous anymore.<\/p>\n

\"In<\/a>
In 2013, restaurant critic Adam Platt revealed his identity via the cover of New York Magazine. (Bobby Doherty\/New York Magazine)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Platt acquiesces that his announcement came at the \u201cprodding and endorsement of his editors,\u201d and skirts the question of \u201cWhy now?\u201d by citing examples of foreign writers who never pretended to be anonymous and New York critics who gave up that particular ghost years ago.<\/p>\n

While some maintain that the traditional methods are necessary for impartiality, in the words of Gold, \u201cIn general, a kitchen team tends to cook about as well as it cooks.\u201d\u00a0And those who think restaurants don\u2019t already have mug shots of local critics taped up in the kitchen are kidding themselves.<\/p>\n

A better question then, might be one of motivation, rather than timing. In a culture saturated by social media, the restaurant critic has been all but replaced by a multitude of food bloggers who satisfy our hunger for instant gratification with to-the-minute updates and Instagram-filtered photos.<\/p>\n

In an interview in 2012, restaurant critic Jonathan Kauffman of the San Francisco Chronicle said \u201cFrankly, the practice of anonymity can be a marketing tool.\u201d But with today\u2019s readers becoming increasingly adamant about transparency, accessibility and immediacy, the critic can no longer rest on the laurels of mystery to garner readership.<\/p>\n