Thursday, February 08, 2007
The end of restaurant reviews?
Belfast is awash with libel writs at the best of times, but, we understand, that none have made it to open court in ten years. Not so now. One Belfast restaurant has today successfully sued the Irish News for a review by celebrated restaurant critic, Caroline Workman, who gave it a rating of one mark out of a possible five. The action has cost the paper a cool £25,000 and two weeks in court. Which, potentially, makes reviewing restaurants a potentially ruinous business.
PA have more details...
Mick Fealty @ 04:12 PM
Thank God.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:14 PMThis seems to me to be pretty close to what in criminal trials would be called a ‘perverse verdict’ whereby the jury deliberately misinterpret the law.
I’d be astonished if it isn’t overturned on appeal given that it strikes right at the heart of the fair comment defence.Fair play to the Irish News for having the balls to run rigorous restaurant reviews; far too many local/regional papers run utterly banal, timid restaurant reviews in which every tatty country carvery is ‘superb’.
I know someone who worked on a big city in England who submitted a suitably critical review of a crap meal. Rather than run it the managing ed paid for her to go back on another night where she had a slightly less disastrous meal and even then she had to sweeten her copy. The two reasons he gave were a) not wanting to frighten off advertisers and b) a pathetic bit of reverse snobbery about not wanting to alienate people who enjoyed this dive.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:38 PMYeah but was it libel?
Was it true?
Sadly the original review is now “sub judice” or somesuch.
What did it say?
Cmon!
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:47 PMJone
One of the joys of the libel laws is the extent to which they encourage subtlelty. Would we ever have had a Golden age of Hollywood without the Hayes code?
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:51 PMJone-
“Fair play to the Irish News for having the balls to run rigorous restaurant reviews; far too many local/regional papers run utterly banal, timid restaurant reviews in which every tatty country carvery is ‘superb’.”
You’re absolutely correct.
I know some people might say ‘sure it’s only a restaurant review’, but (assuming the article itself was fair) this decision strikes at the heart of freedom of expression. Are we all to think twice before genuinely expressing our properly-informed opinions on such issues? I’ve run a few adverse restaurant reviews in my time on my own site, all based on my genuine opinion and experiences- it makes a change from the normal humdrum of political discussion, but perhaps I ought to reconsider whether it’s such a good idea!
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:52 PMHaving eaten in the establishment.....its nothing to write home about let alone a restaurant review!!!
Its BYO so the trip to curleys is a necessity (to wash the food down perhaps in a complementary manner of course)Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:05 PMIt will, surely, be overturned on appeal?
Diplock Courts for defamation hearings anyone?
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:05 PMWillis, whether it was true or not is a pretty grey area when it comes to a review. It’s all on the reviewer’s perception and it’s a subjective thing not a clear cut case of yes or no. If the court of appeal doesn’t overturn this, it will be disgraceful.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:18 PMMP-
Maybe you should have taken some snaps of what was on offer and proffered them to the Irish News to support their defence case ;)
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:18 PMEl mat
Is it true that the SDLP in West Belfast hold membership meetings there on a regular basis.
“Table for six sir”
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:18 PMLets just say that the contribution from Curleys had kicked in by that stage!!!
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:22 PMFair play to the Irish News for having the balls to run rigorous restaurant reviews; far too many local/regional papers run utterly banal, timid restaurant reviews in which every tatty country carvery is ‘superb’.
Exactly......
Local journos are pish poor never a critical word written. e.g. car bloke in bel. tel. whose strategy seems to be rehash PR platitudes for each new model - never once does he of sub-editor / byeline writter say ...ehh this car is shite don’t waste your cash.
Same goes with eating out - lazy hacks taking papers money for a meal out for them and their squeeze.
The Goodfella verdict is bollox - so much for the 12 good men and true aphorism - 12 punters who eat out in crap diners and wouldn’t know decent fresh prepared food if it was sitting in front of them. That is more travisty and reflection on society that infringement of press freedoms.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:28 PMGavBelfast
Libel is the only type of civil case held before a jury but there is a growing trend of judges sitting alone, eg Irving vs Lipstadt was heard by Gray J sitting on his own.
This follows a change in the Defamation Act in 1996 which allowed judges to go without a jury if the case involved large amounts of scientific or documentary evidence. Lord Bingham also seemed to give tacit encouragement to follow this path as some of his judgements implied that libel juries are a bloody menace.
Some libel lawyers - mainly those acting for claimants think it’s used too often. They reckon the unpredictability of the jury has a bigger upside for them - as this Irish News case demonstrates.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:44 PMWhat that pizza cost the Irish News is anybody’s guess - upwards of £500,000. And now they want to go to the House of Lords....
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:51 PMNot referring to Goodfellows now, but…
Surely there’s a way to avoid such libel actions. You can say that you were absolutely delighted by the quaint service, entranced by the long meditative periods between courses, much taken by the colourful language of the staff, attracted to the whimsical verbiage of the owner...that sort of thing..."an experience never, ever to be forgotten” etc etcPosted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 12:42 AMEddie - You should submit your CV for the job… such critical language!! ;-)
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 03:00 AMFor a bit of craic, I went to Goodfellas last night for a meal. The shellfish were frozen, not fresh. I know this to be correct, cos someone asked the waitress, who was good enough to check with the kitchen.
Fortunately, I have no real taste, so I was happy enough to be palmed off with a big portion.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 06:36 AMThe last thing we want is a bland review to go along with bland food.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 07:53 AMSometimes a poor review works out quite well. I know of one restaurant here in Dublin, who got a few lukewarm reviews over the space of a coupe of weeks, and were booked out for weeks on end afterwards.
I remember a few years ago, a restaurant reviewer in the Irish Times did an unmerciful hatchet job on a small neighbourhood restaurant in Wicklow town. The following week, the owner of the restaurant took out an ad on the restaurant page of the paper, thanking their many regular customers and friends for their kind words and support in light of the recent review.
The same reviewer never wrote another review for the IT. As far as I know, the restaurant is still going strong.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 10:01 AMThere’s quite a bit of precedent for this. Most people don’t sue if they really have a reputation to lose, or no reputation at all, as they don’t want the bad publicity to be amplified. However, it sounds like these people do have a reputation, and the patrons like it, so it’s worth their while.
If you’re going to say bad things about someone or their business, do it carefully, or budget for the occasional court case. I have no sympathy for the newspaper.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 10:13 AMGerryOS,
You’ve pointed to an important factor in restaurant reviews; a professional reviewer/ food writer will be visiting a large number of places and will have an acute awareness of the difference between good, and and indifferent food. They’ll be eating with a critical tounge.
For the patron of a neighbourhood restaurant, say a pizza parlour in a working class area of Belfast, it might be the only place they eat in and anyway the quality of the food may not be their prime motivation for eating there. It’s a bit like your local pub - it may not be the Cafe de Paris but it’s just round the corner, it’s affordable and they know you.
But whereas most local pubs will at least pour a half decent pint of Guinness too many neighbourhood restaurants get away with serving incompetently cooked food.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 10:53 AMThere is no reason why cheap food has to be bad or why working class people have to eat bad food.
There is a subtext to much of the comment here (and in court) that a snobby restaurant critic should have realised Kennedy Way deserves no better. Yet it’s the critic who is apparently the snob. Go figure.Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 11:39 AMGoodfellas is a good idea that in execution is hit or miss. Love the idea of the Italian-Irish connection. But sadly for those who like pizza and pasta, the emphasis is on the Irish half of the connection. It is not awful food; it could be better. It’s not a bad wee place, though.
Gordon Ramsey is also currently very upset about an unflattering review of his newly opened New York restaurant - don’t know if he will sue or not.
Either way it’s publicity and there will be enough people going to see if ‘it is really as bad as they say’.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 12:30 PMIf any of you fine fellows happen to come across the original article, please let me know (). I teach journalist how to avoid this sort of thing and I need to know what the poor critic said to land her in the soup.
Philip Cowan
Posted by on Feb 12, 2007 @ 08:46 PMThat of course should be journalists (plural).
Posted by on Feb 12, 2007 @ 08:47 PM
