3 ms·

The essay being referenced was on HN's front a couple weeks ago (610 upvotes, 391 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18469658 https://news.ycombina

by danso 8y ago

The essay being referenced was on HN's front a couple weeks ago (610 upvotes, 391 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18469658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18469658 Backgrounding -- and finding something problematic on someone who you've profiled and liked is definitely one of the least fun things I've done as a reporter. Regardless of the merit of the person's claims/denials, it must genuinely suck to have talked to a reporter for what was initially intended to be a positive recognition (e.g. "proud local owner of 'Best Burger Bar in America'". Only to find out that your previously private legal problems -- i.e. known only to your personal network -- are going to be mentioned in the mass media. Even if the mention is minimal -- i.e. doesn't change the main focus of the story -- the subject of the story might wish they had never been picked as a story idea. That said, when you fail to mention a glaring problem at all -- well, it's not the crime, it's the coverup. I would've understood if the original author had found out about the legal problems and decided not to write a followup at all. I can believe that he wasn't truly aware of how serious the burger bar owner's legal history is, and didn't want to pry if it was the kind of crime that didn't make normal headlines. But when you write a self-indulgent graf like this -- > And that fact is the thing I can’t quite get past. That a decision I made for a list I put on the internet has impacted a family business and forever altered its future. That I have changed family dynamics and relationships. And it could very easily happen again. -- you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've done a thorough vetting. It's true that owner that owners of well-reviewed establishments are thrown into a world of stress -- this has been true since the "golden age " of newspapers and print critics. But for someone to have suddenly and inexplicably shut down, it's also possible there's more to the story than what the owner would like to publicly claim.

AznHisoka 8y ago
When i read the story originally, I just couldn’t believe he was telling us everything. The whole premise sounded absurd. If the burger place got too busy, he could’ve hired more. Or tell people he had a seating limit. Or spray some fart odor around the place to detract more visitors... lots and lots of things. Either the owner was lazy or something else was going on. Also the story sounded like a humble brag of sorts. “Oh my publicity made tons of people go there and shut it down!!” (please.. unless you’re Trump or Elon, I highly doubt your words were that influential)
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Yeah...you just make people wait in line...and often times that just increases demand. There's a BBQ joint in Austin with that situation. Franklin's always has a wait. But I hear it's damn good BBQ.
- Mikeb85 8y ago
  While it may sound absurd, I do think there's merit to what he's saying. Expectations can be hard to deal with, especially when you're selling cheap, humble food. How do you balance trying to sell a $10 meal with the expectations of a foodie waiting hours to get in? And then how do you cook for volumes significantly higher than what you designed your restaurant for? It's easy to say hire more people, but sometimes the secret sauce is simply a cook who cares, and you can't always hire that (especially at a low price point).
mewse-hn 8y ago
The previous article seemed to be as objective as the reporter could make it, describing his personal sense of guilt but also the people around him who tried to convince him it wasn't entirely his fault. He did allude to the family problems that the restaurant owner was going through, and that they contributed to the failure of the restaurant. He probably felt that airing those problems publicly would merely do more damage to the business he felt responsible for damaging in the first place. This new article says the original author didn't know about the legal entanglement so that could have used vetting. This all seems to be related but separate to the main question from the original article: how responsible are food critics to the businesses they write about? Even if the business would eventually fail on its own, is accelerating the downfall an ethical wrong? This is the interesting part of the conversation that should be examined with these articles
- danso 8y ago
  It definitely was a set of unfortunate circumstances for the author. If he was told about the messy divorce, it would have been standard procedure to get the ex-wife's side of things, especially since she had been a manager at the bar for nearly 2 decades. But I'm assuming she's dead, if she had stage 4 breast cancer in 2014. And that might have led the author understandably to think that "messy divorce", and drinking problems, was as problematic as it got. I completely agree with you that the author still had a good point. I think his article is particularly resonant today, with the growing fear and resentment of social media oversharing, online harassment and doxxing, and even data retention (e.g. "Right to be forgotten").
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
c3534l 8y ago
> you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've done a thorough vetting On a hamburger review? I'm all for holding the media accountable, but it's just a guy saying he like the hamburgers he ate there. The owner's personal life is his own business, and the reviewer has essentially no obligation here.

by danso 8y ago

AznHisoka 8y ago

When i read the story originally, I just couldn’t believe he was telling us everything. The whole premise sounded absurd. If the burger place got too busy, he could’ve hired more. Or tell people he had a seating limit. Or spray some fart odor around the place to detract more visitors... lots and lots of things. Either the owner was lazy or something else was going on. Also the story sounded like a humble brag of sorts. “Oh my publicity made tons of people go there and shut it down!!” (please.. unless you’re Trump or Elon, I highly doubt your words were that influential)

chrisco255 8y ago
Yeah...you just make people wait in line...and often times that just increases demand. There's a BBQ joint in Austin with that situation. Franklin's always has a wait. But I hear it's damn good BBQ.
Mikeb85 8y ago
While it may sound absurd, I do think there's merit to what he's saying. Expectations can be hard to deal with, especially when you're selling cheap, humble food. How do you balance trying to sell a $10 meal with the expectations of a foodie waiting hours to get in? And then how do you cook for volumes significantly higher than what you designed your restaurant for? It's easy to say hire more people, but sometimes the secret sauce is simply a cook who cares, and you can't always hire that (especially at a low price point).

mewse-hn 8y ago

The previous article seemed to be as objective as the reporter could make it, describing his personal sense of guilt but also the people around him who tried to convince him it wasn't entirely his fault. He did allude to the family problems that the restaurant owner was going through, and that they contributed to the failure of the restaurant. He probably felt that airing those problems publicly would merely do more damage to the business he felt responsible for damaging in the first place. This new article says the original author didn't know about the legal entanglement so that could have used vetting. This all seems to be related but separate to the main question from the original article: how responsible are food critics to the businesses they write about? Even if the business would eventually fail on its own, is accelerating the downfall an ethical wrong? This is the interesting part of the conversation that should be examined with these articles

danso 8y ago
It definitely was a set of unfortunate circumstances for the author. If he was told about the messy divorce, it would have been standard procedure to get the ex-wife's side of things, especially since she had been a manager at the bar for nearly 2 decades. But I'm assuming she's dead, if she had stage 4 breast cancer in 2014. And that might have led the author understandably to think that "messy divorce", and drinking problems, was as problematic as it got. I completely agree with you that the author still had a good point. I think his article is particularly resonant today, with the growing fear and resentment of social media oversharing, online harassment and doxxing, and even data retention (e.g. "Right to be forgotten").
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

c3534l 8y ago

> you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've done a thorough vetting On a hamburger review? I'm all for holding the media accountable, but it's just a guy saying he like the hamburgers he ate there. The owner's personal life is his own business, and the reviewer has essentially no obligation here.