'*Not interested in chain restaurants.'
Yet, poor Maple does just that. She lists chains and has visited chains, and makes no apology for doing so, even when I requested she change her interests (feel free to check our twitter conversations). Obviously, a dangerous thing. Because clearly, Maple doesn't do her research, and assumes she knows what's what. That something's originally placed, when in fact it isn't. Not only is Maple a bad food blogger, she's a bad journalist, and has little integrity, because she'd rather post a reply of 'Nah' so as to not bruise her own ego, or justify her actions by meaning 'non-local corporate chains', whatever that means. But if being really picky, there are still some on her list. I can think of two. And I will name them if you ask me. That's the biggest red flag of them all. She doesn't care about being honest, or restaurants, as far as I'm concerned. She only cares about herself.
So what do we do? Well, I can't do much more than what I've done, which is bring attention to it. It's up to you dear readers, to suggest Maple have some integrity and reassess what she aims to speak about, without elevating herself to a more worthy authority by 'being local', and caring about 'local' business, because she's not. She's lost in a Bourdieuian mess of cultural capital. Trying to join the ranks of people hypnotized by ecologism, which is today's worst kind of consumerism.
I implore you all, please help before it's too late.
Love,
Weezee.
Posts
11 comments:
I'm confused by this post. In your own copy, your write:
"...because Maple, whoever she is, is just that. A foodie. Not a journalist. Not a food writer. And it's this irresponsibility that makes food writing a laughable thing, and a destructive thing to the poor restaurants who do their best to serve, but have individuals eat, without perspective, or proper knowledge, and post their thoughts about the place on their blogs. But I won't go into that."
Even though you spend several words going exactly into that. But I digress.
Maple herself doesn't claim to be a food expert - her own disclaimer:
"I highly doubt I qualify as a food connoisseur. Hence, I cannot fathom differences in quality above a certain threshold of deliciousness, meaning that fine dining is only an option for special occasions."
She's a hobbyist, trying to do something she loves, with no claim to be anything else. Where's the harm?
People will either read and approve, or read and move on. Instead of worrying about Maple, who you clearly don't approve off, why not concentrate on someone or something you do?
Danny has really said it all, so I'm not sure what I can add to this other than I find the tone of this post and your choice of words to describe Maple unnecessarily petty and hysterical - not to mention that this whole attack seems to be unprovoked.
First off, I have to profess my ignorance (and perhaps I'm no better than the blogger you lambasted) but I went through her list of restaurants to review, and didn't recognize any chain names that I recognized. Perhaps it's because I am not a resident of KW, or perhaps my definition of 'chain' is more aligned with Maple's - I didn't see a single East Side Mario's, Milestones, or Jack Astor's on that list. Then again, perhaps I'm simply not paying attention.
I also don't recall a single area on her blog where she refers to herself as a 'journalist' or an 'expert', so I personally can't see where she's failing to perform her role as a professional - because she doesn't purport to be one. She strikes me as a person who just enjoys food, and wants people in KW to explore their city's culinary offerings. A hobbyist, as Danny said. Then again, I must not have been paying attention, because she obviously said something of the kind to raise your ire... right?
My main point (which has so far been made with more than a touch of sarcasm) is that she is someone having fun with her blog, and doesn't take it too seriously. Perhaps you should take a page from her blog (figuratively speaking) and do the same.
It's this sort of petty targeting - the kind where you feel the need to 'call out' a blogger for failing to 'maintain integrity' when she's just having some fun - that make people afraid to add their voice to the web.
Wow.
First off, where do you get the sense that Maple's blog aspires to the levels of 'food journalism' that you are accrediting to her? Her blog, which I have been following for a while, is a simple little personal diary. (The horrors of the Internet!) If she was calling herself a food critic --which she doesn't-- and was being published in the Record or trying to build up a critical portfolio, maybe you could criticize her writing for lacking sophistication. But when she writes phrases like "Toasty bread! Yay!!" in her posts, it's more adorable than "dangerous".
You are coming off as a pretentious dolt, Mr. "Critical Food Theorist". If you want to engage in some critical discourse surrounding the ideology of blogging, Instagram, and hipster cultural capitalism, there are better ways than to single out a very small local blogger for attack. Write an essay, quote some Zizek -- but leave poor Maple out of it.
Comrades,
I disagree. I didn't expand on the dynamic of bloggers using their own inexperienced palates to judge restaurants. Obviously I did mention it, so Danny Brown, I think you make a moot point.
Helen, if anything, my response is polemical. Too often do I get attacked by restauranteurs because of their misplaced angst against 'foodies' who blog without perspective. And no, Maple may not be a journalist, but for the amount of effort she puts into blogging about 'local' food (especially through social media) I claim she needs to be more responsible. I may not be an environmentalist, or a police officer, but am I still not civilly responsible for my own actions?
I lose truck with Maple because she disavowed her responsibility. The size of a chain shouldn't matter, the fact that a restaurant attempts to be a chain is enough. I am not railing against chains. I'm railing against Maple's hypocrisy, her lack of responsibility, her lack of research. What about City Cafe Bakery? What about Matter of Taste? The Charcoal group? I suggested she get rid of such an absurd claim. All this for the sake of saving food writing, for the sake of restaurants respecting food writers for good truthful judges that can help them with critical, constructive opinions of about their food so they can improve. Not scopophelic, lazy statements about things being 'good' or 'bad.' You think it's harmless, but for the food industry it is poison, it is toxic. If she really wants to help the community she should have the integrity to not cover her ass with blanket statements about not being a gourmand just to buffer her ignorance about the damage she will inevitably do. If she just liked food, then she wouldn't go out of her way to blog about it. So clearly, there is some claim to fame attempted here.
People never simply 'read and approve, or read and move on.' The digital world, any screen, with its fantasy constructs of food can easily hypnotize. I've spent a great deal of my life in kitchens, in restaurants, with chefs, writing about food. It's not like regular business. The ethos of the restaurant is a very different thing. And I'm confident Maple's complacency will cause damage at some point in the future if she doesn't act more responsibly.
Andrew,
people can't write on the internet and not expect dissent.
Your blogs has a way of introducing food in a very down-to-earth manner. You have a knack in translating the pleasure you feel on your palates into words. Your honesty and passion for food are obvious in your writing. There is something humble yet daring in your posts. I can feel your strong sense of duty for finding great food. I thank you for trying to delivering your passion to us, your audience. Your blog is a fun read without the feeling that I’m reading a proper restaurant review. A proper restaurant review often abides by series of guidelines, and they often lose themselves within those guidelines. I guess this is the beauty of blogosphere, getting great introductions to quality restaurants without the stress. However, this post devastated my impression of your blog.
After reading this post, one should lose their respect for you as a blogger. Fans of your blog should be disappointed and cringe in embarrassment. By criticizing Table for Maple the way you did, one can only assume that you are putting yourself on the same level as a proper journalist. That really is a shame and laughable, because this post represents the definition of what bad journalism is in our society. This is the example of the worst kind of journalism. This piece you wrote lacks integrity; it lacks the fairness and the accountability that is required in ethical journalism. The pettiness of this article is insufferable, and your personal biases are also apparent. The Canadian Association of Journalist's Ethics Guidelines are weeping for your assumption of what "good journalism" means. This is confusing to me because things you did in this article are also the things you dislike about Table for Maple.
I'm urging you to learn about what good journalism means before judging another person's writing. Please do your research before dressing yourself up as the Savior of Canadian Food Journalists. This post is really disappointing to read. Yes, people should be held responsible for what they publish, but what you said isn’t constructive at all. I am holding you responsible for that.
This is inconstant to your style. Please don’t slap the name, journalism, on it. Please don’t put yourself on a pedestal, to me there’s no difference between what you’re doing and Table for Maple’s work. Your criticisms are valid, but I wish it could have been written in a better way. You too are responsible to uphold high standards, and this post definitely doesn’t match up to them. There is beauty in constructive criticism, and unfortunately this is something you need to learn. I know you can take criticisms well, so please improve.
Thank you for introducing me to Table for Maple
J,
Thank you for your friendly, albeit, passive aggressive words.
Again, I think I hit the point home which was to call attention to an issue that makes bad writing. The Blog can be a private thing, but when one actively chooses to put it in the public eye, through social media, multiple websites, looking for viewers, reciprocating follows, etc., it becomes responsible. A person may not be a certified journalist, but you'd be amazed at all the journalists without 'journalist' degrees. Things become dangerous when writers become irresponsible; when they write without caring about the damage will inevitably do, even if they have no intention. Journalists certainly are allowed bring to light current issues that cause damage to the public sphere. My own post wasn't merely an attack on Maple because she is bad at writing reviews. I don't care enough about her blog to write that. My concern, once again, is because of the hypocrisy of her blog. Her saying she doesn't have any interest with reviewing chains is a bona fide tactic of the most arrogant kinds of eaters. Hypnotized by hipster cache, only interested in 'the real and authentic' which in and of itself is a hoax and a marketing gimmick. All that said, if that was a genuine response, it couldn't have been for Maple, who still manages to review places that are chains or corporate conglomerates. I find it laughable that she doesn't think the Charcoal Group isn't a chain. Or a corporation for that matter. It has had many installations under many different names and manifestations held in power by a family of shareholders.
Am I a bad journalist? If polemically bringing someone's bad reporting to light is bad journalism, then I suppose I'm a bad journalist- but I'd rather be responsible for the restaurants in the community when I'm going to decide to talk about them even if it means having readers hate me. I'm not trying to win followers. I probably have very little, even after doing this for 5 years.
Anyway, I suppose journalists should have stayed out of North Korea because they painted it as such a bad place, or stopped covering the war in Iraq, because we all know that was a lark, don't we?
I may have been critical, but I did what a proper journalist should do, bring to light something that can cause damage to a group of individuals doing a dishonest thing, and oust one being hypocritical in the public eye.
This whole post says something about Maple's followers. Which leads me to believe they're victimizing her even though what she's done is clearly hypocritical.
-w
Thank you for your reply Weezee and thank you for reading. My intention was not to defend A Table for Maple. You missed my focus. My comment was merely a critique of your work. Your example of bad journalism wasn’t the action of criticizing another blogger. It’s the lack of knowledge in what constitutes “proper journalism” made you failed as a journalist. In your post, your biases, pettiness, lack of ethics, and immaturity as a writer was concerning to me. Perhaps there were too many examples of bad journalisms out there and people often confuse what was good with what was actually bad.
Focus on the truth and facts, not personal attacks; focus on the solutions or calling for solutions (especially important in critical pieces); pointing out the flaws, while not ignoring the goods (also important for critical pieces); be accountable to your readers, not just yourself; you focus on their action, without the attempt to derive the implications of their actions. If you failed to see the hypocrisy of your post, then maybe you really don’t have the slightest understanding of what “proper journalism” means.
This post wasn’t a proper critique/review for A Table for Maple. It was an attack, a rant, or an emotional response to something. It’s not a “journalist thing” to do, a commentator at best but not journalist. It’s not the fact that you shed light to what you think is bad reporting that made you a bad journalist. The way you presented your story, which lacks the standard ethics of journalism, made you a bad journalist. It’s the lack of knowledge of what being a “good” journalist means made you’re a bad journalist. Like I said before, this post isn’t consistent to your standard quality, and it’s disappointing to read. Maybe you’ve achieved the reactions you wanted, and provoked some readers with your overly sensationalized words. That’s still not “proper journalism”.
You have a critical mind, I hope you don’t let your defensiveness get the best of you, and miss what my point again.
I didn't find any personal attacks. I don't know Mable personally. I think her techniques are pandering, I think her motto is hypocritical. That was the critique, not that she broke my heart and I'm out to get her. that's absurd.
Thanks for the comment,
-w
P.s., I've never outright called myself a journalist. I am a critical theorist. And I think a great gastronomer.
You seem angry and impatient J. At least, that's the impression I get from your anonymity and poor grammar in your own rant.
All the best!
-w
Thank you for all your comments, and I am gracious for them. I truly do appreciate your every reply. I apologize for the not proofreading before posting. That's so disrespectful of me. It also reflects poorly on my character.
You didn’t inspire negative emotions. That’s ridiculous. I’m sure that’s not what you were after. Thank you for being so considerate.
Take care and thanks again for your hard work :D,
-J
p.s You seem pleasant and have the ability to easily rationalize your behaviors
Post a Comment