Opinion: In gastronomic criticism, differences between an expert and an expert are study and work, evaluates Josimar Melo

The current challenges of food criticism are the same as those for art criticism in general, and for journalism itself in the internet age.

The spread of budding bloggers and collaborative platforms (flooded by gangs selling positive reviews) has already been hailed as the end of the “critical dictatorship”.

It was a celebration of mediocrity and obscurantism, of the death of experts. The neighbor’s opinion, added to that of the anonymous uncle, about movies, books, restaurants, became the law. Finally, democracy!

Democracy is good for choosing rulers, but the majority opinion in relation to the arts means little. An opinion poll, or the sum of votes in an application, at most, attests to the preference of a universe of people, but not a technical and authoritative evaluation of anything.

That’s what specialists are for: critics who devote their time to studying an area, who sacrifice their sleep to watch several late-night movies, or their liver when they eat lunch twice in a row to deliver an accurate assessment to readers.

I think it’s great that the internet opens up space for amateurs to give tidbits about what they like. What may seem astonishing is that there are so many people who take them as authorities, and gullibly follow them. But this has always been the case. Even before today’s fake news.

The prestigious press has always been in the minority. The sensationalist and liar tabloids have always had much more readers (less in countries like Brazil, where the illiterate and poor population did not consume newspapers).

Party bloggers exchange praise for money or food. A more acid blogger is just lashing out at restaurants (friends, compliments; slanderers, slanders). And they attract clicks.

As a journalist, I am not panicked by the situation, which is not new: in London or New York, sensational newspapers have always been the majority; and if a New York Times review is influential, gossip in the New York Post tabloid has always plagued restaurant owners.

Now, in the world of the internet, the situation is reproduced. With the usual exceptions: the “alternative press” (dwarf newspapers, fanzines) has always been a breath of independence and a critical eye, as some websites and blogs do today. Some.

What worries us is how the big vehicles will behave. They already made a mistake at the beginning, by making their digital content available for free: read the sheet or Le Monde was the same as reading fake news from a palpitator—one click was enough.

The situation is changing: media outlets now charge for their content, and readers are opting to pay for professional, more reliable information (including authoritative reviews). Even if this contingent of readers is in the minority, as it always was.

However, something worries me. In gastronomic criticism, a difference between the expert and the expert is that the first one goes to the restaurant once and is already authorized to carry out a definitive “analysis” of the place, giving quotations based on a single impression. Like listening to a single track and judging an entire music album.

The critic goes to the same restaurant two, three or more times, evaluates how it works on different days and hours, tastes as many dishes on the menu as possible — backed up by years of study and work.

This takes time, and it costs money. For a journalist to dedicate himself and do a job that differentiates his vehicle from the rags of the tabloids (printed or digital), he needs to be paid (to have this dedicated time), and he needs to be financed (to have his expenses covered by the vehicle).

Today we see newspapers and magazines that grow in digital audience, but decrease in advertising revenue, cutting expenses and expenses. Bloggers (and Instagrammers, tiktokers…) will continue to sprout, some enjoying their hobby, others cashing in on their dishonesty while seducing the gullible. It’s not the problem.

But if the press cuts costs, stifles material conditions for its experts, this can indeed be a death sentence for thorough, truthful, and reliable criticism.