I’m also by no means a PR expert, although I’ve worked for a PR firm in a slightly different (non-PR) role. I did observe enough, though, to know when you don’t want to roll your client out on the front line, and when it’s wiser to take the high road.

I probably will end up at Ken’s some day – it’s certainly not on any kind of ‘must boycott’ list for me. But reading his comment didn’t rocket him up to the top of the ‘must visit’ list, either.

Here’s hoping you find your meal much more enjoyable than my post!

Do hits = credibility? If so, does that mean I’m twice as credible as Food Dude because I get twice as many hits per month? Is the National Enquirer twice as credible as the LA Times because its circulation is twice as large? Were your articles that were read twice as much as other articles twice as credible?

Does popularity make something more true? Does belief in something make it more true? When Bush originally made his statements about WMD and both the world and most Americans believed him was he more right than now when few people believe that Iraq had WMD?

Honestly, I thought Ken went over the top in his attack on you and your piece, Nancy, and I’ve defended you privately to him in emails. However, I’ve re-read his criticism of Food Dude’s review and I think it’s quite fair. Basically Ken’s saying that Food Dude is anonymous and has no authority he must submit to. Therefore, his credibility comes from a professional writing style that emphasizes objectivity and minimizes opinions. His review of Ken’s Place, however, was dominated by opinions, giving primarily vague descriptions. Further, there were several inaccuracies. As such, Food Dude’s review wasn’t credible and there’s no authority above him to enforce his objectivity. (Ken goes through several concrete examples in making his point, btw.)

As for what I said earlier, I thought I was clear, but perhaps not, that I was talking about possibilities, not probabilities. I have no reason to believe that Food Dude’s site is fake or that Food Dude is fake. However, it is possible. That’s part of the nature of the internet. I used to pretend I was an old lady on Yahoo Games because people were more likely to play me chess and cribbage. There was a minor controversy in a friend’s blogger community because they just discovered that for several months a small group of bloggers had been perpetrating a charade on the community, pretending to be people they weren’t, and creating stories that were believed and that emotionally involved people in their site and their alleged travails. It happens. Portland Food and Drink could be such. It’s fair to challenge the authenticity of any blogger, just as it’s fair to challenge the authenticity of mainstream journalism as Jayson Blair and Dan Rather have taught us most recently.

Only paid reviewers have credibility, esp. when they reveal themselves to the restaurateur

I must have an assfull of self-loathing, then, since I don’t get paid. You really must make a New Year’s Resolution to avoid creating straw men. It’s a common tactic you’ve used when you’ve attacked me. To restate, once-a-frickin-gain, my opinion on the subject is: Comped meals are no big deal. Neither are most relationships. Anonymity is not important except in that a restaurant may have an opportunity to give a reviewer special treatment. You may want to afford me the courtesy you would a subject of an article in the future and quote me. That way you won’t mangle what I said. To stop you before your next response: Because “If it’s raining, the street is wet” is true does not mean that “If the street is wet, it’s raining” is true.

Finally, this is the first time I’ve used “cabal” in a sentence.

I like how careful you are to not shove this FACT down Ken’s throat.

Anyhow, I don’t understand all this energy you’ve put into needing others to behave how you want them to. I’m hoping Ken said what he meant, and has no regrets. In fact, after reading his “screed”, I’m definitely gonna spend my next dining dollar at his place. He seems like a straight-shootin’ guy who isn’t afraid to stand his ground, in his own voice, and I’m bettin’ the food has soul, unlike that canned apology you so generously offered up. Do you really think that sounds gracious? To me it sounds like “Apology 3a, client: Ken’s Place”. Again, my respect goes to the guy who writes what he thinks.

“Here’s a simple truth: You don’t bite the hand that you feed. Especially when there’s an audience paying attention.” … hey look, more facts. Thanks, Betsy.

You’re bringing all those years of traditional PR professionalism to this forum, Betsy, and I think that’s where you’re off. A Blog is more street-level… the audience is way wider than you, your colleagues and the editorial community for some small facet of the world you’re representing (or whatever… who cares?). You’re in all parts of town, talking to all types of people, and I don’t believe you represent a very large segment of our community as a whole. You write as though you think you do, however, and I find it very annoying.

+ Food Dude’s site is, potentially, an eight-month endeavor in order to slander Ken’s food and/or enact a vendetta for some other establishment. Really, since we don’t know who he is, how can we be sure of his motives?

+ Only paid reviewers have credibility, esp. when they reveal themselves to the restaurateur.

Oh, and a little side-report from Ken himself:

+ I didn’t like his pecan tart because I was “stoned.”

Here’s how it is in the rest of the world:

+ Food Dude’s site, at least according to the many people who write/talk to me, is hitting a nerve, and pretty hard, to the tune of 100,000+ hits a month. They trust it. (Unlike, say, Phil Busse at the Mercury, who reviews restaurants before they open.) It’s also comprehensive, always available, and doesn’t become a big papery wad under the car seat.

+ I cannot name three current Portland food reviewers, paid or otherwise, more reliable/readable than Food Dude and the crew he has writing (of which I am one). If anyone else can, please provide supporting evidence.

+ The contention that I didn’t like the pecan tart because I was “stoned” is almost too sophomoric to respond to, but here goes: I didn’t like the tart because I didn’t like the way it tasted, nor did I like its texture. That I had no interest in naming where I ate this tart seemed beyond the logical purview of MSG, who accused me of being part of the anti-Ken cabal.

It’s worth remembering that I don’t have an editor or a publisher or boss. That means there is at least one less level of accountability and oversight. And in Food Dude’s case, there’s not even a person, per se, to make accountable. He could at any time change his site and change his name and start up something new. It’s one of the problems with the internet, that anonymity is so easy. If Food Dude were to lose credibility, he could just change his byline and instantly start a new source of publication. If Food Dude were to libel Ken or another chef or restauranteur, who would they even sue?

Look, there are benefits to the internet’s anonymity, but there is a dark side, too, that we should always keep in mind.

Just peruse the waiter rant sites some time to see how bad it can get with fully anonymous and fully unaccountable posters being as slanderous and vicious as they want to be.

BETSY
Perhaps he was a little pissy, especially at first in that response, but then he is one of you hot-headed liberals, so maybe I just expected it. :-p

It’s not what he said – it’s how he said it. And reacting to that isn’t punishing ‘openness’ – it’s recognizing bad form, is all.

Food Dude is accountable to his readers. His background and training are in his archives, published, for everyone to see. And his readers enforce his objectivity.

Ken’s attack on his credibility is hypocritical. If Food Dude lacked credibility, then why does Ken feel a need to respond? Obviously it’s because Ken knows that people read and react to what Food Dude says. And people do that because they trust him.

Ken’s dismissal of bloggers, and subsequent attack on the form is what leaves the bad taste in my mouth.

Of course it’s a questionable PR move. But I think that says more about us as a society — that we are so ready to punish openess. You see it in politics and business all the time. Hell, you see it here.

We’ve had several arguments on here about whether a person should patronize a store where the owners disagrees with them politically. In other words, the “smart” or “clever” — some might say sneaky or sly — owner hides his personal feelings, his politics, etc. Better to nod and smile than take the chance you might offend.

It’s a sad state. People shouldn’t be afraid to have opinions, to have their opinions challenged, or to challenge others’ opinions.

(An irony in all this, btw, is that if employers took this approach with employees they would be vilified and boycotted for that, too. Customers, apparently, are right to not send their money to companies that disagree with them or disagree with a customer publicly, but if an employee were to disagree politically with their employer or were to publicly complain about their employer, they would be honored, and if they were fired, the company would take the heat.)

It would have been smarter for him to investigate those avenues first (emailing Food Dude directly, spending some time exploring the site, posting a version of the note I drafted, asking you about him, etc.) before posting the comment he did.

It’s also clear to anyone reading the site with more than a cursory glance that FD’s not in anyone’s pocket, nor does he have a hidden agenda. I know that you feel his anonymity is a liability – but there are many of us who find it just one more reason to find his reviews that much more credible, as the discussion on his site clearly illustrates.

And I’m not talking about enforcing political correctness – instead, it’s simply good customer service. There’s a difference…