Dear Diner,
What is the purpose of a review if the review is constantly one that is glowing? A review is (in my opinion) one that is honest and straight forward. It tells the truth as to what the restaurant’s standards were on the night of the dining. If a movie or a play is reviewed do you tell the producers “we will be back to review when the production is better?” To me that makes absolutely no sense. It is not the reviewer’s responsibility to keep the place going. It is the reviewer’s responsibility to print the truth. How can I judge a restaurant if only positive reviews are printed? I never take Ms Terry Diner’s column too seriously because it is only printing half-truths.
Brendan
Miss Terry replies: There is the situation where as the reviewer, you feel that the restaurant’s performance was just not up scratch, and you cannot in all fairness to the readers (and to the restaurant) write a positive review. So you simply do not write the restaurant up. I have previously explained why I do not publish damning negative reviews. These do nothing other than give the reviewer an inflated idea of his or her own importance. They do not make people go to the restaurant to see if it really was ‘that’ bad. Rather than help the restaurant improve, a negative review kills the restaurant. I do not believe that a journalist has the right to break anyone’s rice bowl.
