Now what I’m about to say will probably ruffle feathers, but I feel as part of this industry it’s my duty to speak up because it’s one I know other cooks share as well. What are food critics? They are writers who analyze food or restaurants and then publish their opinion of it. At no other point in history have there been so many “food critics,” and yet most have never worked in a restaurant nor realize what it takes to run one on a daily basis, year after year. All too often, a certain population of these “critics” feel that, by dining at an establishment a couple times, their opinion is gold, perhaps without considering that the words they share with the public can affect the business owner, the restaurant’s crew, and their families. Yet their readers deserve to know their opinion, right?

To be a restaurant critic, I propose there be a requirement to work in a restaurant for an extended period of time, whether it be as a server, a cook, a hostess, or a bartender. All of these jobs are important to the success of the overall restaurant, but most who critique do not have a working knowledge of what it takes to do those jobs. This, I feel, is unfair to the industry. An expert on dining should be one who has seen all sides of the business, from the inside and out. He or she should understand what it takes to run a successful restaurant. Only then will I feel they are qualified to critique one’s craft – once they have done it – only then have they earned the right to judge one’s cuisine.

As a diner I would challenge this of your food critics. A good writer might not have the best palate, but they should know what they’re eating and how it was prepared. I have read many reviews that have stated incorrect information. These days everybody’s a critic, which is not necessarily a bad thing – hell, everybody has their right to an opinion – but if you are going to make it your job, say for a local or national publication, there must be some required guidelines to do so.