Criticism of American restaurants evolved long before Covid-19. The pandemic has revealed why critics must continue to embrace change.

[ad_1]

So, is restaurant criticism dying or just changing? The pandemic has forced critics to extend their voices and talents in new directions and has shown that criticism can be a remarkably malleable form. One thing I think the pandemic has made very clear is that the restaurant review has a lot of functions beyond just telling people where to eat this weekend, Wells said. I am personally very happy to see restaurant reviews presented as more than just judges. Were also fact collectors, among others.

Indeed, fact-gathering has become a major function of food journalism during the pandemic. Over the past year and a half, journalists and critics have helped uncover exploitation and abuse in the restaurant industry; documented supply chain disruptions; and advanced conversations about the value of work in restaurants, the complicated role restaurants play in Covid restrictions and vaccination warrants, and the rights of all food workers to a living wage and benefits. safe working conditions.

Restaurant reviews are uniquely positioned to contribute to these important conversations. More than traditional news reporters, they tend to have more editorial freedom to publish both commentary and direct reporting, and therefore benefit from broader entry points to reporting and storytelling.

The pandemic has shown us that restaurant reviews are more than neutral evaluators of restaurant meals and dining room ambience. My wish is that restaurant critics will invoke this freedom more frequently, not only to investigate the social and economic forces at the heart of the pandemic, but also to help reshape a medium that for too long has primarily served interests and appetites. white people and high places. middle class audiences.

What might breaking the mold of traditional restaurant criticism look like? This could mean updating star rating systems to make them more inclusive and representative of contemporary food culture, or getting rid of rating systems altogether. It could mean less reluctance among critics to review food served outside of traditional dining rooms. This means orienting coverage more around the perspectives of journalists and readers of color, whose knowledge and insight remains woefully absent (or marginalized) from mainstream media and food publications. And that will mean expanding the reach of who can shape and direct the country’s food coverage, not just because the present times demand it, but because criticism cannot flourish without it.

[ad_2]