I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of the role of the food critic. None of them intend to manipulate anyone, nor do they have some special sense of disce

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of the role of the food critic. None of them intend to manipulate anyone, nor do they have some special sense of discernment or sensitivity that goes beyond anyone else, nor is "liking" or "not liking" anything the central issue they're concerned with. And when you think about it further, opinion has little to do with their job. What distinguishes a food critic from everyone else is their ability to WRITE about the food, wine, place, and experience. This means they describe the restaurant by comparing it to other experiences, putting it into a context. "Eating out" may very well just mean grabbing a bite to eat to some people at some times, but it ALSO can be a central cultural activity. It absolutely is worth writing and reading about. "Breaking a restaurant", as dramatic as it sounds, doesn't happen with all reviews. Bad things can happen (because of reviews) when a restaurant tries to fake its way into being something which it is not, or when a formerly spectacular place starts "phoning-it-in" as far as service, food or innovation is concerned. Far more common, however, is that the reviewer will identify something really unique and thus create a buzz that causes a rush of business (as seen with "Dirt Candy" in NYC). Sometimes, its "sophisticated palate" sometimes its "simple pleasures". A good reviewer will generally advise you to do exactly what you said "to explore, take time to absorb the qualities and try reasonably priced family-owned places." And if you want to read about it as well... that's their job. Food critics in "food cities" still have a lot of influence (and I would count some blogs as worthy food criticism as well). Philly is a prime example with our well-respected critic, Craig Laban [http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/craig_laban/ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/craig_laban/].