Critics need anonymity

As I have said many times before, any restaurant critic who says anonymity is not important [“And I’ll Be Your Critic Tonight,” Sept. 12] is either a fool or a liar. It is one of the main reasons I stopped reviewing for the New York Times. I became too well-known in New York City restaurants where it mattered most and so felt I could not do the job as I thought it should be done.

When Vanity Fair published my article explaining all of the ways restaurateurs can fool critics even if they arrive unexpectedly, I received letters from several owners assuring me that I didn’t even know the half of it.

Mimi Sheraton

New York, N.Y.

--

With so many critics at major publications in L.A. -- Patric Kuh of Los Angeles magazine, Brad A. Johnson of Angeleno and S. Irene Virbila -- all restaurants ought to know that reviewers could be present any time, any day.

In addition, food bloggers, Chowhounders and Yelpers, while not necessarily qualified to make critical judgments on the quality of service and food, ensure that restaurateurs recognize the importance of every customer, not just reviewers. And, finally, with hundreds of Zagat reviewers and possibly a dozen Michelin reviewers on the prowl at L.A.’s top restaurants, there is simply no excuse for mediocrity in the L.A. restaurant scene. Ultimately, readers should know that the criticism of Virbila, Kuh or Johnson is going to be more credible than your average food blog.

Matthew Kang

Eagle Rock