Award-winning writer Leslie Brenner of the Dallas Morning News has taken a lot of flack for her reviews, but she’s still smiling.
Have you heard about the hard time restaurant critic Leslie Brenner has been getting in Dallas?
I didn’t know about it until I read this article in the Washington Post, which said at least 10 Dallas restaurants planned to ban the Dallas Morning News critic, refusing to take her money. They also planned to refuse interviews, stop allowing photographers, and even print new menus and put stickers in the window saying “DMN Doesn’t Pay Here.”
Fortunately, the movement lost steam and no chefs signed on. But the harassment persists, particularly from Chef John Tesar, who tags Brenner on Twitter and harasses her (see a sample here). She has since unfriended him on Facebook.
It’s bad enough that a chef harasses Brenner, but what concerns me is how local food writers ganged up on her as well. D magazine restaurant critic Nancy Nichols criticized Brenner as a mean-spirited, uptight writer. An anonymous writer at DallasFoodOrg called Brenner condescending and narrow minded. Nichols left a comment that the anonymous post was “brilliantly written” and suggested the writer send it to Brenner’s employer. Teresa Gubbins at CultureMap criticized Brenner’s use of lingo. Houston Eater called Brenner “beleaguered” in a headline. And Dallas Eater covers her every move.
Even Scott Reitz, the critic at the other daily paper, the Dallas Observer, got in a zinger: “Through years of reviewing restaurants around Dallas, Brenner has become the quintessential critic-villain — the sort of pundit we see in movies like Ratatouille and, more recently Chef, who dole out eviscerating zingers for the entertainment of readers that enjoy reading engaging restaurant criticism.”
In the Washington Post story, Brenner holds firm about her restaurant reviews. “If people don’t like my opinions, that’s fine. I didn’t get into this to be liked. I got into it to express my opinion.”
It’s not like she’s a newbie. Brenner came to the Dallas Morning News from the Los Angles Times, where she was the food editor and oversaw restaurant, cooking and wine and spirits coverage. She also wrote restaurant reviews. When she took the Dallas job she had 20 years of experience as a food writer, including awards from the James Beard Foundation and the Association of Food Journalists.
Not everyone is piling on. Hanna Raskin spoke out about the backstabbing in the Washington Post article: “There were plenty of restaurateurs who didn’t like me, but that’s been true in every city where I worked. What’s unique about Dallas is the total absence of mutual respect in the food-writing community.” Raskin is a critic for the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier who worked at the Dallas Observer for a year. A commenter on the Washington Post’s article said, “What’s the worst part of all this? Catty bitchy females. Pathetic excuses for articles.”
I’m with them. It’s not that food writers require blind allegiance to each other. But if you want to criticize someone, talk among yourselves. Keep it zipped in print and on social media.
Says Brenner, “I don’t think any journalists should be sniping at each other. It’s incredibly unbecoming. It continues to surprise me that it’s still going on. I don’t see them behaving as journalists do. They write posts about me without calling me for comments, and fact checking seems pretty lax.”
She’s good at letting the criticism roll off. “I probably got my thick skin in graduate school at a fiction writing MFA program,” she explains. “The heart of that was writing programs, where you would be critiqued by your peers. In the two years I did that, I came to understand it was my work that was being critiqued, not me, and it wasn’t a personal attack. It also helped me gain the tools with which to deal with criticism. You take the criticism that is helpful to your work and you tune the rest of it out.”
Brenner has lots coming up to keep her fired up. “I feel energized about the next few years,” she said. Because of dropping her anonymity, she’s approaching her work in a different way. “I’m teaching a course in the fall, and helping to organize events at the paper — like a food festival and videos about restaurants.”
Plus, the food scene in Texas is smoking (that’s a barbecue joke). “There’s a very exciting culinary movement all over Texas and very much about Dallas, ” says Brenner. “Here it’s a lot about smoked meats and influence from immigrant communities that has evolved into this really fun cuisine, and feels very organic.”
What are your thoughts about the food writers who backstab? Do you think writers should dis each other in stories and social media? Do you think it’s a coincidence that they are mostly female? Is it fine because Brenner’s a controversial public figure? Have you endured harassment as well on the web? Let’s discuss.
* * *
You might also like:
- Chefs Blast Bloggers on Restaurant Reviews
- Male Food Writers Promoting Male Chefs
- 5 Ways Bloggers Changed Restaurant Reviewing
I write about restaurants, but I’m not a food critic. I abhor snarky, even when the writer has a point. There is a way to criticize food so that it helps to guide future diners (why else critique). It should NEVER be to slam a restaurant, slam food or slam a chef. That is food writing done merely for the satisfaction of the writer. She looks snarky and unlikeable and sorry she looks like this is the only way she gets to have power. Once you think you’re powerful and not helpful, you’re on your way to a very subjective review. I live in a small city where the local chef/owner struggles to stay on top. I’m mindful of my words. My goal is probably equally subjective. I want the owners to hear my suggestions; I want the people of Nashville (and our tourists) to have a great dining out experience.
Thanks for jumping in. Unfortunately, this is more of what I was talking about: personal attacks. Sorry Angela, you are not helping the conversation by making negative judgements about Brenner, particularly about the way she looks. Seriously?
Re writing about restaurants versus critiquing them, you and newspaper critics have a lot in common. They also love their town and their restaurants. Like you, they want their townspeople and tourists to have a great dining experience.
wow. judging her by her looks. that’s taking the high road, isn’t it?
We had a similar situation in Kansas City a few years ago. A restaurant critic for a local magazine wrote scathing reviews and was banned from a few restaurants. It hurt the critic more than the restaurants because restaurant patrons were upset and complained to the publication. If you’re too passionate and without a sense of proportion as a critic, it’s a bad combination. The reader of the review might spend $25 to $100 on a restaurant meal (at the kind of restaurant that would be reviewed) as opposed to say, $30,000 on a vehicle which would put a much larger dent their pocketbook. Why not write a scathing review of the vehicle? Because that would impact the publication’s advertising income from car dealerships much more than that from one independent restaurant.
Oh this is a sad story, Judith. I guess the editor could not rein in the critic. There is such a thing as going too far. But Leslie has lots of support at the newspaper, and I suppose controversy sells papers.
Having been a newspaper reporter and city magazine editor, I know all about the advertising impact. When we had to cut pages at the city magazines, we cut the listings of non-advertisers first. I had stories killed as a newspaper reporter because of the effect on advertising too.
It’s really unfortunate that all of the players in the Dallas drama are female, but I think this situation has far more to do with the tenor of Texas than any innate gender traits.
Immediately after working in Dallas, I had the good fortune to join Seattle’s professional food writing community, which — when I arrived — consisted of Nancy Leson, Rebekah Denn and Provi Cicero at the Seattle Times; Bethany Jean Clement at The Stranger; Kathryn Robinson at Seattle Met; Allison Austin Scheff at Seattle Magazine and Allecia Vermillion at Eater Seattle. All women, all wonderful: I was constantly struck by how thoughtfully everyone read each others’ work, and how genuinely they promoted it. I don’t think the Seattle food scene suffered any for being covered by writers who sometimes met one-on-one for drinks.
As for the larger issue of whether critics should criticize each other publicly, I think there are certainly times when it’s appropriate to question another writer’s methods (in a professional way, of course!) As a critic, my first obligation is to my readers: If I suspect they stand to be mislead by someone who isn’t conforming to journalistic standards, or to the Association of Food Journalists’ ethical guidelines, I don’t think I’m bound by some kind of writers’ omerta.
In Brenner’s case, for example, there were plagiarism concerns about her barbecue round-up. That doesn’t excuse nastiness or backstabbing, but it is a legitimate subject for open investigation. As critics, we not only prize transparency — we’re in the business of calling out restaurants for their failings. It’s only fair to take the same rigorous approach to our own industry.
For the sake of food journalism, it’s probably wise to avoid reflexively rallying around every food writer. When the Brenner backlash first made national news, I was surprised by how many people — who seemingly weren’t familiar with her work history — turned it into a story about criticism in general. I only spent a short time in Dallas, but I don’t think she was a blameless victim of the contemporary chef ego.
Because so many people who aren’t food writers have trouble distinguishing the good from the bad (check out Mark Vetri’s HuffPo essay today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-vetri/how-food-journalism-got-a_b_6551682.html), it probably behooves us to draw those distinctions. Sometimes — even when it’s painful — publicly.
A thoughtful response, Hannah. Thank you. How fortunate that you are part of a supportive food writing community of excellent writers and strong women (at least the ones I know on that list).
We don’t need to rally around writers, but we also don’t need to attack them. These are two extremes. I talk a lot about grey area when I teach — it’s hard because it requires more thought than reflexively deciding what is awful or awesome. As a restaurant reviewer, I bet you are very familiar with the middle, because most dishes you eat are somewhere in there!
When there are legitimate questions about a writer’s work, such as plagiarism, people have every right to question, as you say.
Finally, thanks for the link to that excellent piece by Vetri. I wrote a long chapter in Will Write for Food about how to be a professional reviewer. I find that today, few food writers are interested. Having an opinion is too hard, and they don’t want to deal with the consequences.
We all have thoughts, sometimes unkind, about our colleagues. But airing that in public, on social media or any other platform, is absolutely unprofessional. No excuse, ever.
When I see someone doing it on Twitter I unfollow. The worst is when the jab doesn’t name the target, but is so thinly veiled that everyone knows who’s being referred to. That’s shows not only a lack of professionalism but a lot of cowardice too. Lowest of the low.
Overall, I agree, and there has been too much of that online. There are the odd times when a writer has done something that needs calling out. I have reported stories like that, such as here: http://diannej.com/2010/food-writer-busted-on-free-wedding-meal/
Yes you’re right Dianne, I didn’t mean that writers should never be criticized. Calling out — for plagiarism, not disclosing (honestly, the world could use more of this), non-truths in a story, or even pointing out items that may need correction (in a professional way) — is one thing. Disagreement on style, or voice, or opinion, or tone etc etc.(“oh what a crappy story on X”, “did you see the photos with that article? a monkey could’ve done better”, that sort of stuff) is petty and unprofessional. And ganging up on a writer in a public way — are we adults or are we kindergartners?
In this case, reading Hanna’s comment, there does seem to be more to the story — still, the way it’s been done is distasteful and reflects poorly on the journalists/writers (not to mention the chef) who’ve participated.
I disagree that these are examples of backstabbing, Dianne. There’s no collegial profession of food writing, with a tacit code of ethics about criticizing a fellow critic. All food writing—especially restaurant criticism—should be in service of the reader. If one believes that a colleague isn’t serving his or her readers, does one have an obligation to say so publicly? I think that’s an individual decision for writers, but, for those who do go public, it shouldn’t be considered backstabbing.
Hmm. I like it that you’re disagreeing, John. Thanks for speaking up.
People have tried to establish a code of ethics about restaurant reviewing, including the AFJ. But these codes don’t apply to criticizing each other in public. That is just bad manners, in my view.
Plus, criticizing a competitor always makes you look suspect. You have a vested interest in that person not succeeding, so you can’t be impartial. Everybody can see through it. It’s better for an outsider to tackle the subject, which is why the WaPo did the story.
As to whether calling out a critic is in the public interest, I’m not sure about that. The public doesn’t know the fine points of restaurant reviewing. They do enjoy a good fight and the controversy, though.
I’m with John (even if his succinct statement makes my rambling above seem even less focused.)
Spreading unfounded rumors about another critic or printing a list of his or her favorite aliases sounds pretty backstabby. But I don’t think questioning the quality of his or her work meets the standard, especially since our profession is largely self-policed. Sure, it’s bad manners — but so is asking a man why he was fired or showing up at someone’s house unannounced. Reporters aren’t known for their mastery of social graces.
Civility is an excellent goal. But I don’t think critics should have to reserve judgment of their peers. As Birdsall says, it’s up to each writer to weigh considerations including the public interest and perception of motives.
I guess what bothers me most here is people not seeing the difference between criticism and personal attacks. (The first comment here has me stunned.) You can think someone is not good at what they do, and criticize their work. That is an opinion vs opinion, and is excellent discussion. But that is very different from a personal attack of the person, saying, for example, that they suck, they are a horrible person, they are mean, or what ever other conclusion you probably incorrectly drew from their work.
And sorry John, I also disagree with you. It’s fine to disagree with the person’s opinion, but when fellow writers start taking cheap shots at others, it cheapens it for everyone, and is, IMHO, quite unprofessional. No harm or foul on disagreeing with their conclusion or opinion, but very different from attacking the person.
Thanks Owen. I suppose if you really can’t stand what someone is doing, and you think they’re doing a disservice to the public, it’s hard not to speak out publicly.
I am a born/raised Dallas resident, and both a longtime reader of this blog and of watching this entire high school drama unfold. I call it such, because it really has been a clique-ish, petty dispute truthfully. As a resident, I can affirm the social status clash that really set this off. Brenner is a fantastic writer but having come from LA and being married to a Frenchman, she initially set the sanctimonious tone, whether intentionally or not. Many of the taste and experiences she references in reviews are unapproachable. (though I’m well-traveled and absolutely expect any critic of any art form to be cultured) This all coincided with the evolution of lower scale dining, tacos and burgers (every pocket of the city is saturated); her reviews clashed. An example which set everyone off was mocking a wine list at a bbq place. In her defense, the bbq place does have options. List, I wouldn’t call it. Two other things have set this off, John Tesar is a reality-tv sensationalism addict so he fuels the fire. I believe the other critics and restaurants to have jumped on this bandwagon were moreso towing the line with herd mentality. It’s easy for any diner or restaurant owner to be easily offended and justify a disagreeable review by just acting defensively.
Hello Brocka, nice to hear from you. It does seem petty, regardless of Brenner’s offenses. Thanks for giving us some background.
What I find interesting is the use of the phrase “Catty bitchy females.” Really? There are no catty bitchy males? If Brenner were a man, would he be getting this flack? Or would he simply be called tough and difficult to please? Pete Wells didn’t get called names when he wrote a scathing review of a popular restaurant a couple of years back. There was backlash, but no name-calling. It seems like whenever a woman has strong opinions, particularly unpopular ones, she gets called names, or is presumed to be having PMS.
Hah! I like this point of view, Roberta. Thanks for bringing it up. I was hoping someone would.
Well, since I live in Dallas and have read Leslie Brenner’s reviews every week since she came here, I feel “qualified” to comment. Leslie is a hard critic. And yes, she does use terminology that even the above average diner won’t know. She has slammed restaurants that have made us scratch our heads. And she has done somersaults over new chefs and restaurants that were just too weird. Dallas loves to dine out and we are knowledgeable and appreciate great food. We love our old favorites (Leslie has slammed two of these,but she said she knew it wouldn’t make any difference, and she was right.), but love to embrace new talent and new places. We are not impressed by fancy New York City icons – in fact, a few have come and left quickly. The John Tesar/Leslie feud was kind of funny and we rolled out eyes; but Tesar did have a valid complaint. Most of Dallas thinks we haven’t had a good restaurant critic since Dotty Griffith left several years ago. All that being said, no one should get nasty about it. Leslie has a job to do and restaurants want to be the best they can be. Sometimes the two don’t match. Maybe she should not revealed her identity.
Fascinating, Carol. Thanks so much for your perspective. Critics can be divisive. I know that here in San Francisco people have opinions (I should put that in capital letters) about Michael Bauer, who’s been in the job forever. I’m not sure whether it’s a bad thing. In some ways it seems inevitable.
Eek. This sounds like bullying. And, unfortunately, this type of behavior is eaten up (pardon the pun) by the general public. I really hate stuff like this. If you don’t like a critic’s review, you try to engage that critic in a civilized discussion, focusing on the review (not on the critic personally). To start bashing someone on a personal level for basically doing their job is unprofessional and childish. I think a lot of these folks need to grow up and get out of the high school mentality.
Wow, people have strong opinions about this stuff, Jean. You too. I do think food writers have problems with how Brenner approaches her reviews, and that is legitimate. Personal attacks though, have no place.
It is sad that the food writers feel a need to backstab. Even sadder that they are mostly female, but I guess I’m not overly surprised. Highly inappropriate and unprofessional to bad talk each other in stories and social media. Wonder if she had any of these problems in Los Angeles.
I don’t think she wrote many reviews in LA, so she was not as visible. I’m not sure that only females backstab, Susan. It might be one of those sexist stereotypes. Probably something to research.
I think it is important to call out Nancy Nichols of D Magazine as the lead bully of Dallas’ food writers. I have been appalled at her long-time boorish behavior towards other local critics who are not freelancers for her magazine. Hanna Raskin will attest to the rough treatment. I sincerely hope Nancy is not posting anonymously against her fellow writers.
I read a a great line about Dallas the other day: “Restaurant Industrial Complex.” I assume this refers to the grade inflation of old DMN food writers, the lack of a rating system in D Magazine and food writers like Nichols who have a clubby relationship with the star chefs in town.
I frequently disagree with Brenner, but I like that she has upset the apple cart of diva chefs and Nichols.
Hah! You sound like a bit of an insider, Sarah. Thanks for your input.
Randomly ran into this… Not to be unkind, but your defense of Brenner is sad… She very obviously stole from Vaughn. Worse was her dismissive response of telling him he is just a blogger and doesn’t understand journalism. Fast forward a few years and she is out of journalism for a high dollar/low ethics gig writing fake reviews in PR for a corporate group and Vaughn took a massive pay cut to go from architect/blogger to Texas Monthly’s BBQ editor.
The story is not about BBQ-gate, although that would have been relevant. It is about harassment of a female restaurant critic, mostly by men. And I see that it is still going on, six years later!
As for Daniel Vaughan, he has done very well and I’m a big fan.