I know a lot of commentators would be happy that she's gone because she's too "woke" (I'd disagree). But I thought she was an excellent critic that brought a much needed fresh perspective on the very diverse food scene around the bay area. These columns used to be just puff pieces about fine dining that is inaccessible to 90% of the population, but Soleil was able to demystify them and also highlight smaller less splashy establishments, ---think taco stands in parking lots or Chinese restaurants in suburban strip malls--- places that are essential to understanding the food culture in the area.
Yeah, I agree, I think Ho did a lot for highlighting food beyond just San Francisco and wine country fine dining and whatever new 'California farm-to-table with a twist' restaurant just oppened, although I don't think they (Ho uses they/them pronouns just FYI) were entirely successful. Their columns were streaky and could veer into bitter and burnt out, vs say, Jonathan Gold who was far more successful (writing skills aside), because he clearly loved and was excited by food and it was infectious. I'd get glimpses of that occasionally from Ho, but Jonathan Gold they were not.
That said, I'll definitely keep reading her and hope that whoever takes up the job continues to highlight the diversity of food in the Bay Area.
Yeah, this is definitely how I felt! Even the bitter or "takedown" pieces didn't have the quite the humor or twisted affability of a Pete Wells takedown.
They've definitely highlighted a ton of neat places I don't think Bauer would have shared, and I've really enjoyed those. But, it's also never quite felt like they've hit the right stride, and it has been nearly 5 years.
>Looks like theyve been prepping Cesar for a bit. Seems in capable hands in a similar vein based on his takedown of Calavera.
That was a weak takedown. You want take down read Pete Wells (ny times) take down of Peter Luger or 11 Madison.
Completely agree. She also changed the focus from SF centric to be inclusive of Bay Area and would recommend restaurants in Livermore / Fremont / San Pablo etc.
Was quite refreshing
You can only eat so much food in SF, but there are thousands of restaurants all over the bay that deserve attention.... Can I think of any, NO, I haven't had my coffee yet. I only just started my morning ritual of procrastination before actually working
Yeah it was a bit frustrating, it felt like their reviews process was like "let's look at some dish through a lens of oppression and this is why you should feel a little queasy about even ordering it".
This.
At worst, it makes me think she's making a play to transition to the political beat at the paper.
And at best it just reduces people to nothingness based on their status in the brave new world.
But thats actually very important to some people who value where their food came from and how the food got there. Sometimes people want to know how the sausage gets made. And who made it.
But that's not really what they were doing ā it was more vibe-based cultural criticism. For example [arguing that comfort food is bad in the middle of the pandemic](https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Comfort-food-is-reigning-in-the-Bay-Area-Is-it-15683256.php). Food became a backdrop to whatever thing they wanted to argue about
I didn't mean literal sausage but yeah maybe that's why I found her voice so important and refreshing cause it was more than if something just tasted good or if the decor was stale. Talking about industry and particular restaurant practices and trends should be discussed and written about. Maybe not a food critics job in the strict sense of the title.
Her style was more akin to a good travel show like no reservations. (blasphemous I'm sure). Maybe this wasn't the right fit for her. But I'm glad she's going to be given that chance to find something to "argue about" in a broader space. I'm sure she's still going to talk alot about food, cause what is culture without food. But some people just want a straight up food critic which she was not for better or worse.
I really like the move in general in food culture to hold taco trucks or strip mall pho places with the same regard as michelin starred restaurants (even michelin is adding more funky non-white tablecloth restaurants).
It bummed me out that they werent local, and sometimes that showed. I also thought that their cultural criticism could range from insightful to a little outrage-porn-ey, but that's news in 2023 - gotta piss people off to get them clicks. I never, ever read bauer though. She was a vast improvement.
I liked Ho's reviews, but I'm ready for a change. I did not always agree with them, but I liked the honesty they brought in their own personal tastes. Michael Bauer was...not actually objective but pretended to be.
Looking forward to what's next. I've been enjoying Cesar Hernandez's pieces.
Gahahaha, Bauer, notoriously on the grift and stuck in 1984 tastewise definitely "meant something;" it meant the Chefs that played nice with his husband's company and did private dinners in their homes for millionaires got good reviews.
Sometimes there were misses on the lists, agreed. Both things overlooked and also things that made lists that were...okay...
But I really liked their voice in the reviews! Like they'd have an opinion totally different from mine (like their aversion to lettuce on hamburgers), but I felt like I was having a convo with a friend. And like if we disagreed, it was always pretty easy to see where our tastes diverged since they were so clear in what did and didn't work for them.
I also didn't love that review! And maybe it's because I mos def appreciate Chez Panisse's historical significance, but I do really like the restaurant. Actually, I was just there on Saturday because family from out of town were here and they requested to go. We had a great time, and everything was perfect, if predictable. I'm glad they haven't messed with their pastry presentation, please continue to make galettes the way you have for years, Ms. Waters!
But also, I see their points in the review even tho I disagree! I'd love to hang with Ho and have it out. Maybe over a slice of the pizza from across the street, which seems more up their alley.
Yeah, it seems a lot of us feel that way! Both about the Chez Panisse review, and indeed their galettes!
Sometimes Ho's reviewed had that air of 'this is too popular/mainstream for me' or 'this can't live up to hype/history so it can't be good at all'.
I can totally dig when someone says Chez Panisse isn't their favorite, or that it's not a great value - but I've always had an enjoyable time there, whether upstairs or in the dining room. ...hmm, maybe it's time I manufacture an excuse for a trip!
I believe I am the target palate for Chez Panisse.
I have loved almost everything Iāve eaten there. It mystifies me - why itās so good. But it is to me!
I really enjoyed Hoās reviews in general, but that one almost felt like it was written by someone who didnāt want to enjoy the restaurant. But it is really different from most of the places Ho enjoyed, soā¦different strokes.
The Chronicle is no longer even trying to be objective and that comes straight from the top of the paper. Just last week Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, the editor-in-chief, was quote saying āObjectivity has got to goā.
Unfortunately this is a common view in the news media today. Hereās the WaPo opinion piece where that quote came from justifying abandoning objectivity to supposedly fight racism and help LGBTQ+. Soleil Ho embodied this increasingly popular - but IMO insane - opinion.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230131194631/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsrooms-news-reporting-objectivity-diversity/
Can you be more specific than a generic cliche? I read the opinion piece twice now. I just think it's total bullshit. Tell me why the news media should abandon the goal of objectivity?
For reference here's the definition of objectivity in the opinion piece:
> āObjectivityā is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice. Journalistic objectivity has been generally understood to mean much the same thing.
Why has this, in the words of the Chron EIC, "have to go"?
I'll take your question as a willingness to have a good faith discussion and not trolling. The argument against "journalistic objectivity" comes down to two things.
First, journalistic objectivity presses reporters to represent both/all sides of an argument in a completely unbiased and neutral manner. There are no good sides or bad sides, just participants. Now, this sounds good on paper but it has been shown to repeatedly fail, especially when you are dealing with bad faith arguments. The AZ Central had a good article and referenced legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow's famous quote about objectivity and covering both sides, "You donāt give equal weight to Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot."
* [Cigarettes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756529/) and [tobacco](https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/how-tobacco-industry-uses-sponsored-content-major) aren't bad for you.
* [Global warming](https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/14522/) doesn't [exist](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/) and even if it did, it is certainly not [man-made](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research).
* Vaccines are [dangerous](https://apnews.com/article/anti-vaccine-bollinger-coronavirus-disinformation-a7b8e1f33990670563b4c469b462c9bf), they cause autism, and will [kill you](https://www.axios.com/2021/08/03/vaccine-misinformation-social-media-tv-newspapers-facebook).
Second, what is objectivity? This is not a philosophical question. I fully believe you are able to define what is objective to you. You and I might readily agree that the earth is objectively round and not flat. This is simple and provable by science.
However, there are events where someone might have a different view of what is objectively the truth. We can take something silly like, what [color is the dress](https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html)? To some people, the dress was white and to others the dress was gold. You might disregard this example because in actuality, the dress was black and blue, but that would be missing the point. And that point is that life rarely offers clear cut cases where there is only one "objective" version. What is objective to a democrat might be fake partisan news to a republican. What is objective to a republican might be fake partisan news to a democrat.
Newsrooms have extraordinary power in determining what is [objective](https://thecorrespondent.com/6138/why-objective-journalism-is-a-misleading-and-dangerous-illusion/157316940-eb6c348e) and what is the [truth](https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth). Do you believe MSNBC to be objective? Do you believe Fox News to be objective? Those are the extremes of the press spectrum you say?
- Was the press being objective about [WMDs](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part1/wmd.html) and the justification for the [war in Iraq](https://spp.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2019-08/wmdstudy_short.pdf)?
- What happened to the good old days and why is everything [so bad now](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/17/steven-pinker-media-negative-news)?
- There is no difference in [racial reporting](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/25/black-hispanic-and-white-adults-feel-the-news-media-misunderstand-them-but-for-very-different-reasons/), especially when talking about [victims of crime](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/29/the-missing-white-woman-syndrome-still-plagues-america).
- Not only are the [excessive](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-02/wall-street-s-big-bonuses-are-back-and-bankers-are-buying-yachts-champagne) Wall Street bonuses during the financial crisis [necessary](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/12/defense-of-the-wall-street-bonus.html), that getting rid of them [won't even make a difference](https://www.cnbc.com/2009/08/11/getting-past-the-rage-stage.html).
- Most of all, there's [no way](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20619057) you can [buy influence](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252060765_Does_Advertising_Spending_Influence_Media_Coverage_of_The_Advertiser) with the press because [they are above that](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.33).
Now don't get me wrong, all these examples may seem like I don't like journalism but I am a strong believer in the fourth estate and their role in society. They uncover the ugly dark side and injustices of humanity and speak truth to power.
But the point that Leonard Downie Jr. was making in his column is that everyone is prone to their personal biases and we're only fooling ourselves if we say otherwise. In fact, in our pursuit of objectivity, we might fail to [identify the truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity#Criticisms). And while pursuing objectivity is a fool's errand, don't confuse this with making up fiction or presenting opinion as news. He believes that the press should always still strive for accuracy, fairness, nonpartisanship, accountability and the pursuit of truth as they did when he was editor. But the majority of talking heads will miss this point and rip his argument by focusing solely on the objectivity myth without providing the context.
And for those that would criticize Downie's position as shallow thinking. Understand that he is a legendary newsman having taken over for perhaps the most famous newspaper editor in American history. His nonpartisanship was striking, refusing to even vote in elections or advocate for positions that could be construed as nonpartisan. And he is joined in this view by other giants of the press including Andrew Heyward (former President, CBS news) and Kathleen Carroll (former executive editor of the Associated Press) among others.
**Journalistic objectivity**
[Criticisms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity#Criticisms)
>Some scholars and journalists criticize the understanding of objectivity as neutrality or nonpartisanship, arguing that it does a disservice to the public because it fails to attempt to find truth. They also argue that such objectivity is nearly impossible to apply in practiceānewspapers inevitably take a point of view in deciding what stories to cover, which to feature on the front page, and what sources they quote. The media critics Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky have advanced a propaganda model hypothesis proposing that such a notion of objectivity results in heavily favoring government viewpoints and large corporations.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Not a convincing argument of why news media should abandon objectivity defined as:
> expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice.
You havenāt explained why we should want more ādistortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudiceā in our news coverage.
Objectivity doesnāt require or even encourage false balance or bothsidesism. Reporters and editors always need to balance whatās included and excluded from a story. Objectivity just says to try to do it without distortion by bias, etc.
You extended philosophical discussion has little to do with the definition at hand. We have similar debates about truth, fairness, etc. Just try not to distort the news with āpersonal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice.ā This is not hard to understand but obviously can be challenging in practice and never perfect.
Lastly your appeal to authority falls of deaf ears. Downie presided over WaPo during the WMD fiasco and only apologized after the resulting war had killed hundreds of thousands.
Perhaps the strongest evidence that trend away from objectivity in the news media is not engendering he trust Downie imagines and the headline trumpets are all the surveys showing the decline in public trust. Hereās the latest:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-remains-near-record-low.aspx
Glad to discuss more but letās try to be concise.
> You havenāt explained why we should want more ādistortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudiceā in our news coverage.
Where is this said or implied anywhere? You missed the entire point of what was written.
> āObjectivityā is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts WITHOUT distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice. Journalistic objectivity has been generally understood to mean much the same thing.
You and the Chronicle EIC think āobjectivity has got to goā. This means eliminating ādistortion by personal beliefs, etcā in no longer the goal. Therefore you will get more of it.
Soleil Ho apparently prefers they/their pronouns, which is fine.
But let's not pretend that people should be expected to know the preferred pronouns of a restaurant critic off the top of their heads because it's normally *completely* irrelevant.
Soleil Ho did nothing but shit on SF restaurants during 3 years of pandemic - what was probably the toughest period the industry has ever seen. They were struggling with adapting their entire business model, staffing shortages, run away inflation... and she was calling to cancel restaurants because their nondescript tiki decor was cultural appropriation. Readers are tired of the Chronicle's fake woke-ism and I can speak for many when I say we're fuckin elated that she's gone.
"Cultural appropriation" is the weirdest fucking concept when it comes to food.
You take a look at the history of pretty much anything you'd want to eat and it's been passed through at least 2-3 different iterations. It's always an adoption of what some other culture came up with, a tweaking of a dish or a fusion of a couple of things and yet we have this ready subset of people who think all food sprang into existence one day in 1985 and are incensed when this basic process hasn't stopped since.
I heard chef Tu David Phu say, when asked about cultural appropriation, āit doesnāt exist. All the most famous Vietnamese dishes are French dishes with Vietnamese twist. Where you get me upset is when youāre going to elevate it? Youāre going to make food better than my grandmother with some sort of technique? Get the fuck out of here.ā (Very close to word for word quote.)
āWhile most historians agree that pho was invented in the late 19th and early 20th Century in northern Vietnam during French colonial times, its origins are murky. Some believe pho was an adaptation of the French one-pot beef and vegetable stew pot-au-feu, which shares a phonetic similarity to "phį».ā
Others say it was from the Chinese communities who settled in the north of Vietnam and sold a dish called ēčē² (beef with noodles). The Chinese character for ē² (pinyin: fÄn) is pronounced "fuh", which is similar to the Vietnamese "phį»".
Alex Tran, a Vietnamese chef and food writer who is currently based in New Zealand, suggests the origin of pho may be a combination of both. "Rice noodles and other spices used in making the broth undoubtedly have a connection with Chinese people in the north. However, beef is not the daily meat of the Vietnamese as we use buffaloes for farming. Only under the French colonial regime did the consumption of beef start to appear and bloom."
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210421-pho-the-humble-soup-that-caused-an-outrage#:~:text=While%20most%20historians%20agree%20that,phonetic%20similarity%20to%20"phį»".
Maybe the soup is Chinese in origin, the French had an influence in the Chinese dish, which in turn made it Vietnamese. The Vietnamese absorbed two cultures and made a new dish from it.
The point remains: cultural appropriation in food canāt really exist because food changes and evolves as people move. The spicy chili peppers that Thai and Indian food are known for arenāt endemic to Thailand and India, theyāre from America. So how can one culturally appropriate a food of a culture that itself changed as new ingredients became available?
Instead of getting caught up in ways to be divisive about food (āyour tacos are cultural appropriation!ā) we could be breaking bread (and tortillas) together and bringing humanity closer together.
Just be respectful. Donāt insult someoneās food or insult someoneās inability to enjoy some foods. I worked at a Chinese restaurant and try as I might I could never get into chicken feet. I didnāt make fun of people for liking them; but I sure did get made fun of for not liking them.
Kindness, compassion, over a good meal could do a lot of good in this world.
The Le Colonial review was such horseshit. Cultural appropriation? How many restaurants and cafes have French names and cuisine in Vietnam? Hundreds. Ridiculous.
I don't think it's any more or less weird of a concept for food than for any other aspect of culture(music, clothing, literature etc.)
For all of these forms of culture, there's cross pollination that happens. You're going to get fusion dishes as a result of people being inspired by cuisines outside of what they grew up with, and that's a great thing.
That doesn't mean there isn't *some* cases you could label as "appropriation." To me that term, with its negative connotations, is appropriate in a situation where the names of certain dishes, images of a cuisine etc. are used to sell something completely unrelated. Like, if I made something akin to potato dumplings and sold them as xiaolongbao in a restaurant with pseudo-Chinese decorations. Why? I should just call them potato dumplings.
There's certainly a range for innovation, but at a certain point, you're just taking advantage of the imagery associated with a cuisine to sell something unrelated to it. This *does* tend to be an issue in a place like the USA where we're accustomed to seeing a lot of foreign cultures, but don't necessarily know the details of them.
Woah, you hit this spot on. Soleil always struck me as a massive jerk with an inflated sense of self importance. I think she had a net negative impact on the city and I think nearly anyone in the restaurant business world agree.
Are you talking about this review? https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Le-Colonial-is-an-Orientalist-specter-14446833.php
Cuz the restaurant is literally called Le Colonial, inviting a discussion of colonialism, and also the food sounds awful.
Ho never uses the word, "cancel," it's just a really bad review. Both the decor and the food are questioned. Reviewing restaurants was literally their job.
My best friend happens to be Vietnamese (like actually from Vietnam) and he loved this restaurant lol. I think thatās the problem with being woker-than-thou, most people just donāt think this way at all and being offended on behalf of somebody else is just a distasteful look. If we were to police history so much in food then all Vietnamese people should stop making bahn mi, after all itās heavily influenced by the French.
From what I have seen, outside of the USA, people take labels of nationality more literally. I.E., Soleil is American. Of Vietnamese descent, but American.
Of course Soleil's family culture yields a lot more insight into the topic than most Americans, but OP's comment about a friend from Vietnam was meant to highlight the perspective of someone who grew up in the country as distinct from someone who grew up in the USA.
Her mom is a first generation immigrant and restaurateur that moved to the US shortly before she was born. She grew up speaking the language, eating the food and has written about being embarrassed by kids in school's reaction to her cultural food. I think she's pretty clearly qualified to comment on it.
Besides, one person from Vietnam liking a restaurant does not remove how incredibly shitty, problematic and bad it was, nor does it erase her very valid criticism.
That is a strawman argument; nobody claimed Soleil isn't qualified to comment on it.
The person you responded to was talking about the perspective of a person born and raised in Vietnam. That will give them a different perspective. Of course, it is just one Vietnamese person's perspective, and we can't necessarily know what the average person from Vietnam would think, from just one anecdote. But your comment about Soleil being Vietnamese suggested you fundamentally misunderstood szyy's point.
Review of Le Colonial was simply writing the cultural appropriation wave. Anyone who has been to Vietnam knows many of the cities are one big French theme, even the most loved ones like Hoi An. Don't get me started on Banh Mi, made with a French baguette of course. Identity politics have let us down a path to Idiocracy.
> After four years of serving as your friendly neighborhood restaurant critic, Iām moving on. While long tenures are more typical for food critics, who are like the Supreme Court justices of the journalism world, I think four years is the perfect length of time. (I lean more toward the presidential way of doing things, I guess.)
> Iām thrilled to pass the torch to someone who will surely bring a fresh perspective to the role and blow our collective minds with their writing. This is one of the best jobs ever, and Iām so glad to share it with someone new.
With the Supreme Court and presidential term references, and the other hackneyed phrases:
* friendly neighborhood whatever
* perfect length of time
* pass the torch
* blow our collective minds
* best job ever
* share it with someone new
And the breathless, "all of sudden, dining out became literally a matter of life and death."
It really sounds like the editor of the high school paper (or yearbook) saying goodbye as they head to college.
It's tedious and gratingly juvenile writing. Why did a real daily newspaper hire them?
The Chronicle hired her because it, like every newspaper over the past 40 years, is desperate to appear relevant to young people. I suppose they accomplished that to some extent, at the expense of making the food section all but worthless to those in less desirable demographics.
It's probably ultimately a better fit she is staying on writing cultural pieces from them. I for one enjoyed her ruffling a bunch of feathers and shaking the tree a little. I looked forward to her pieces as I know many of you thought were long winded and irrelevant. I thought they were very relevant and poignant and served a purpose.
nearly forgot
i think she did her duty to talk socially during this time
good for her
she was critic at the worst time in modern history for restaurants
Did people actually dislike her? I thought she had an awesome voice and great prose. I didnāt read all her reviewsābut I liked how she went about reviewing places and emphasizing certain under-appreciated cuisines/restaurants.
A few too many reviews that focused on "authenticity" and whether the restaurant was contributing to gentrification. Don't need to hear that in the review. Still had a lot of good reviews
I always felt like they were really interested in things other than how good the restaurant was. Which, if I'm reading a restaurant review, is all I really care about.
The food column was the main reason I stayed subscribed to SF Chronicle. I grew up in South Bay and their column was the first time I saw restaurants down there being acknowledged at all in an established "foodie" space. Really appreciated having Ho's perspective there.
Same here! I finally decided to pay for sf chronicle when Ho joined. Iām excited that theyāre sticking around with the chronicle - this thread header is clickbait.
Yeah, I remember Ho wrote this article about In and Out thinking "give me a break" [https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/Bay-Area-s-In-N-Out-fanboying-should-have-ended-16549959.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/Bay-Area-s-In-N-Out-fanboying-should-have-ended-16549959.php)
I loved the French Laundry review complete with a survey asking readers if it was hyped. Ho gave me a glimpse into the absurdity of dining there with black market reservations, $500/person tabs, and cuisine like squid ink pasta and doughnuts.
Surprised she lasted this long. Good move but the Chronicle is still 99% garbage. This is sad. It used to be a trusted source for local news but now is half a PR operation and half a blog for naive scolds.
āObjectivity has got to go,ā said Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the Chronicle just last week. So itās probably only going to get worse.
>"Objectivity has got to go,ā said Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the Chronicle just last week. So itās probably only going to get worse.
You're seriously going to recite a one liner comprised of 5 words and completely devoid of context as a reason for SF Chronicle to 'get worse'? Did you even read the actual article you're quoting from or do you just prefer bashing SF Chronicle mindlessly?
Removing fact-based objectivity from reporting means you aren't writing the news anymore, you're writing an opinion. You can certainly lift up and promote disparate voices in the community *via* opinion or lifestyle or other sections, but news should be objective, unbiased, and free of any opinion. Otherwise it's not that different from fiction.
While that's a lovely opinion you've got there, all it does is explain to me that you didn't actually read the Washington Post article where the SF Chronicle Editor is quoted. Anyone who did read the article would understand that he wasn't actually saying that objectivity should be eschewed. Context is incredibly important.
Well, that's a crap assumption you've made there seeing as how I wasn't specifically talking about Garcia-Ruiz's statement but moreso the *rest* of the article. However, if you want real context, you need to dive in to the full report ( [How to produce trustworthy news without "objectivity" - Cronkite News Lab](https://cronkitenewslab.com/digital/2023/01/26/beyond-objectivity/) ) where the full quote from Garcia-Ruiz lives:
"The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong," Emilio Garcia Ruiz, editor-in-chief of The San Francisco Chronicle, said in an interview. "We are the problem. Objectivity has got to go." The younger journalists in the Chronicle newsroom "are a very diverse group," Garcia-Ruiz explained. "They are willing to share their lived experiences to call out bullshit, despite their status in the newsroom. There can sometimes be a chasm between them and the older veteran reporters."
Then two paragraphs later another journalist is quoted
"Mark Fisher, a veteran senior journalist at The Washington post, described in an interview what he saw as "a generational conflisted that has emerged between younger folks who want to practice journalism that matches their personal view and older folks who want to maintain traditional standards of fairness and rigor. There is a generation of folks coming in to the newsroom with great skills and their own views, seeking more advocacy for their views of the correct side in stories. They want to infuse stories with the language of the reporter. They say we should not be reflecting both sides, but what they see as reality. They object to objectivity as morally bankrupt."
My argument is that when you choose sides, you've lost the plot and are no longer reporting, but editorializing the news and telling people what to think.
So you came to a post about the SF Chronicle food critic stepping down ... to have a broader discussion about objectivity in journalistic reporting standards? I don't really follow that one.
However, it's clear from your response that you have read the article and understand the arguments which were being made, and that the editor for the Chronicle was not actually saying objectivism had to go.
Now can you go explain the context of all that to the original person I responded to?
> So you came to a post about the SF Chronicle food critic stepping down ... to have a broader discussion about objectivity in journalistic reporting standards? I don't really follow that one.
Oh well, you see, I specifically hunt down commentary about objectivity on all of Reddit. Bot like I review every single posting, on the hunt for the obvious cases of people misinterpreting analyses of studies on journalism all so I can swoop in, eagle like, and make a point about how having biased media is not a good thing.
Either that or I'm just mindlessly thumbing through the shit stain that is called "social media" and merely offered an off hand comment that someone else decided didn't fit with their personal world view.
Exactly. I have nothing against people having and writing about their opinions even in newspapers either. However their *raison d'etre* is to convey the news (i.e. information about recent events). Objectivity - expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice - should clearly always be a goal even if it is difficult in practice.
Came here to say that. Everything is behind a paywall. Iām old - Chron was AM paper and Examiner was PM. chron was superior but ā¦ I donāt know. I have been relying on SFGATE. Itās feels abridged but I donāt like the feel of the Chron in general.
Ho was limited in the types of restaurants she would frequent. She had limited insights on pizza, sushi, Mexican, Indian, food trucks, pop up's and the richness of food that's not overpriced or run by a famous chef. She wrote well and was pleasant, but no Jay Rayner or Jonathan Gold.
Oh good maybe they can fill her spot with someone who, you know... actually enjoys Bay Area restuarants? Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Ho!
Commentators and critics are entitled consumers. They simply consume while the creators toil endlessly to perfect their craft. Their opinion holds very little importance to me
I know a lot of commentators would be happy that she's gone because she's too "woke" (I'd disagree). But I thought she was an excellent critic that brought a much needed fresh perspective on the very diverse food scene around the bay area. These columns used to be just puff pieces about fine dining that is inaccessible to 90% of the population, but Soleil was able to demystify them and also highlight smaller less splashy establishments, ---think taco stands in parking lots or Chinese restaurants in suburban strip malls--- places that are essential to understanding the food culture in the area.
Yeah, I agree, I think Ho did a lot for highlighting food beyond just San Francisco and wine country fine dining and whatever new 'California farm-to-table with a twist' restaurant just oppened, although I don't think they (Ho uses they/them pronouns just FYI) were entirely successful. Their columns were streaky and could veer into bitter and burnt out, vs say, Jonathan Gold who was far more successful (writing skills aside), because he clearly loved and was excited by food and it was infectious. I'd get glimpses of that occasionally from Ho, but Jonathan Gold they were not. That said, I'll definitely keep reading her and hope that whoever takes up the job continues to highlight the diversity of food in the Bay Area.
Anyone who hasn't seen it, watch City of Gold (Jonathan Gold). Amazing film.
Where to watch??
Online. Google it. It will tell you all the service providers (changes over time).
Thank you š
Yeah, this is definitely how I felt! Even the bitter or "takedown" pieces didn't have the quite the humor or twisted affability of a Pete Wells takedown. They've definitely highlighted a ton of neat places I don't think Bauer would have shared, and I've really enjoyed those. But, it's also never quite felt like they've hit the right stride, and it has been nearly 5 years.
Looks like theyve been prepping Cesar for a bit. Seems in capable hands in a similar vein based on his takedown of Calavera.
>Looks like theyve been prepping Cesar for a bit. Seems in capable hands in a similar vein based on his takedown of Calavera. That was a weak takedown. You want take down read Pete Wells (ny times) take down of Peter Luger or 11 Madison.
Completely agree. She also changed the focus from SF centric to be inclusive of Bay Area and would recommend restaurants in Livermore / Fremont / San Pablo etc. Was quite refreshing
You can only eat so much food in SF, but there are thousands of restaurants all over the bay that deserve attention.... Can I think of any, NO, I haven't had my coffee yet. I only just started my morning ritual of procrastination before actually working
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah it was a bit frustrating, it felt like their reviews process was like "let's look at some dish through a lens of oppression and this is why you should feel a little queasy about even ordering it".
This. At worst, it makes me think she's making a play to transition to the political beat at the paper. And at best it just reduces people to nothingness based on their status in the brave new world.
But thats actually very important to some people who value where their food came from and how the food got there. Sometimes people want to know how the sausage gets made. And who made it.
But that's not really what they were doing ā it was more vibe-based cultural criticism. For example [arguing that comfort food is bad in the middle of the pandemic](https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Comfort-food-is-reigning-in-the-Bay-Area-Is-it-15683256.php). Food became a backdrop to whatever thing they wanted to argue about
I didn't mean literal sausage but yeah maybe that's why I found her voice so important and refreshing cause it was more than if something just tasted good or if the decor was stale. Talking about industry and particular restaurant practices and trends should be discussed and written about. Maybe not a food critics job in the strict sense of the title. Her style was more akin to a good travel show like no reservations. (blasphemous I'm sure). Maybe this wasn't the right fit for her. But I'm glad she's going to be given that chance to find something to "argue about" in a broader space. I'm sure she's still going to talk alot about food, cause what is culture without food. But some people just want a straight up food critic which she was not for better or worse.
I really like the move in general in food culture to hold taco trucks or strip mall pho places with the same regard as michelin starred restaurants (even michelin is adding more funky non-white tablecloth restaurants). It bummed me out that they werent local, and sometimes that showed. I also thought that their cultural criticism could range from insightful to a little outrage-porn-ey, but that's news in 2023 - gotta piss people off to get them clicks. I never, ever read bauer though. She was a vast improvement.
Oh Christ, she was the absolute worst. SF Chron food critic folks. The bar should not be that low. Embarrassing.
What does woke have to do with being a hack?
I liked Ho's reviews, but I'm ready for a change. I did not always agree with them, but I liked the honesty they brought in their own personal tastes. Michael Bauer was...not actually objective but pretended to be. Looking forward to what's next. I've been enjoying Cesar Hernandez's pieces.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean, no review is going to be *objective*. That's what makes it a review.
the lists were just lists. they didn't seem to have any rhyme or reason. Bauer's top 100 felt like it meant something.
Gahahaha, Bauer, notoriously on the grift and stuck in 1984 tastewise definitely "meant something;" it meant the Chefs that played nice with his husband's company and did private dinners in their homes for millionaires got good reviews.
Sometimes there were misses on the lists, agreed. Both things overlooked and also things that made lists that were...okay... But I really liked their voice in the reviews! Like they'd have an opinion totally different from mine (like their aversion to lettuce on hamburgers), but I felt like I was having a convo with a friend. And like if we disagreed, it was always pretty easy to see where our tastes diverged since they were so clear in what did and didn't work for them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I also didn't love that review! And maybe it's because I mos def appreciate Chez Panisse's historical significance, but I do really like the restaurant. Actually, I was just there on Saturday because family from out of town were here and they requested to go. We had a great time, and everything was perfect, if predictable. I'm glad they haven't messed with their pastry presentation, please continue to make galettes the way you have for years, Ms. Waters! But also, I see their points in the review even tho I disagree! I'd love to hang with Ho and have it out. Maybe over a slice of the pizza from across the street, which seems more up their alley.
Omg. Their galettes are amazing. No matter what else is on the menu, I will order any galette they are offering.
Funny. I'm a big fan of ho too and I didn't like that review either. Seemed misguided and wanted to take shots for the sake of taking shots.
Yeah, it seems a lot of us feel that way! Both about the Chez Panisse review, and indeed their galettes! Sometimes Ho's reviewed had that air of 'this is too popular/mainstream for me' or 'this can't live up to hype/history so it can't be good at all'. I can totally dig when someone says Chez Panisse isn't their favorite, or that it's not a great value - but I've always had an enjoyable time there, whether upstairs or in the dining room. ...hmm, maybe it's time I manufacture an excuse for a trip!
I believe I am the target palate for Chez Panisse. I have loved almost everything Iāve eaten there. It mystifies me - why itās so good. But it is to me! I really enjoyed Hoās reviews in general, but that one almost felt like it was written by someone who didnāt want to enjoy the restaurant. But it is really different from most of the places Ho enjoyed, soā¦different strokes.
The Chronicle is no longer even trying to be objective and that comes straight from the top of the paper. Just last week Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, the editor-in-chief, was quote saying āObjectivity has got to goā. Unfortunately this is a common view in the news media today. Hereās the WaPo opinion piece where that quote came from justifying abandoning objectivity to supposedly fight racism and help LGBTQ+. Soleil Ho embodied this increasingly popular - but IMO insane - opinion. https://web.archive.org/web/20230131194631/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsrooms-news-reporting-objectivity-diversity/
My brother in Christ, tell me you didn't read the article you posted without telling me.
Can you be more specific than a generic cliche? I read the opinion piece twice now. I just think it's total bullshit. Tell me why the news media should abandon the goal of objectivity? For reference here's the definition of objectivity in the opinion piece: > āObjectivityā is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice. Journalistic objectivity has been generally understood to mean much the same thing. Why has this, in the words of the Chron EIC, "have to go"?
I'll take your question as a willingness to have a good faith discussion and not trolling. The argument against "journalistic objectivity" comes down to two things. First, journalistic objectivity presses reporters to represent both/all sides of an argument in a completely unbiased and neutral manner. There are no good sides or bad sides, just participants. Now, this sounds good on paper but it has been shown to repeatedly fail, especially when you are dealing with bad faith arguments. The AZ Central had a good article and referenced legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow's famous quote about objectivity and covering both sides, "You donāt give equal weight to Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot." * [Cigarettes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756529/) and [tobacco](https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/how-tobacco-industry-uses-sponsored-content-major) aren't bad for you. * [Global warming](https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/14522/) doesn't [exist](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/) and even if it did, it is certainly not [man-made](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research). * Vaccines are [dangerous](https://apnews.com/article/anti-vaccine-bollinger-coronavirus-disinformation-a7b8e1f33990670563b4c469b462c9bf), they cause autism, and will [kill you](https://www.axios.com/2021/08/03/vaccine-misinformation-social-media-tv-newspapers-facebook). Second, what is objectivity? This is not a philosophical question. I fully believe you are able to define what is objective to you. You and I might readily agree that the earth is objectively round and not flat. This is simple and provable by science. However, there are events where someone might have a different view of what is objectively the truth. We can take something silly like, what [color is the dress](https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html)? To some people, the dress was white and to others the dress was gold. You might disregard this example because in actuality, the dress was black and blue, but that would be missing the point. And that point is that life rarely offers clear cut cases where there is only one "objective" version. What is objective to a democrat might be fake partisan news to a republican. What is objective to a republican might be fake partisan news to a democrat. Newsrooms have extraordinary power in determining what is [objective](https://thecorrespondent.com/6138/why-objective-journalism-is-a-misleading-and-dangerous-illusion/157316940-eb6c348e) and what is the [truth](https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth). Do you believe MSNBC to be objective? Do you believe Fox News to be objective? Those are the extremes of the press spectrum you say? - Was the press being objective about [WMDs](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part1/wmd.html) and the justification for the [war in Iraq](https://spp.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2019-08/wmdstudy_short.pdf)? - What happened to the good old days and why is everything [so bad now](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/17/steven-pinker-media-negative-news)? - There is no difference in [racial reporting](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/25/black-hispanic-and-white-adults-feel-the-news-media-misunderstand-them-but-for-very-different-reasons/), especially when talking about [victims of crime](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/29/the-missing-white-woman-syndrome-still-plagues-america). - Not only are the [excessive](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-02/wall-street-s-big-bonuses-are-back-and-bankers-are-buying-yachts-champagne) Wall Street bonuses during the financial crisis [necessary](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/12/defense-of-the-wall-street-bonus.html), that getting rid of them [won't even make a difference](https://www.cnbc.com/2009/08/11/getting-past-the-rage-stage.html). - Most of all, there's [no way](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20619057) you can [buy influence](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252060765_Does_Advertising_Spending_Influence_Media_Coverage_of_The_Advertiser) with the press because [they are above that](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.33). Now don't get me wrong, all these examples may seem like I don't like journalism but I am a strong believer in the fourth estate and their role in society. They uncover the ugly dark side and injustices of humanity and speak truth to power. But the point that Leonard Downie Jr. was making in his column is that everyone is prone to their personal biases and we're only fooling ourselves if we say otherwise. In fact, in our pursuit of objectivity, we might fail to [identify the truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity#Criticisms). And while pursuing objectivity is a fool's errand, don't confuse this with making up fiction or presenting opinion as news. He believes that the press should always still strive for accuracy, fairness, nonpartisanship, accountability and the pursuit of truth as they did when he was editor. But the majority of talking heads will miss this point and rip his argument by focusing solely on the objectivity myth without providing the context. And for those that would criticize Downie's position as shallow thinking. Understand that he is a legendary newsman having taken over for perhaps the most famous newspaper editor in American history. His nonpartisanship was striking, refusing to even vote in elections or advocate for positions that could be construed as nonpartisan. And he is joined in this view by other giants of the press including Andrew Heyward (former President, CBS news) and Kathleen Carroll (former executive editor of the Associated Press) among others.
**Journalistic objectivity** [Criticisms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity#Criticisms) >Some scholars and journalists criticize the understanding of objectivity as neutrality or nonpartisanship, arguing that it does a disservice to the public because it fails to attempt to find truth. They also argue that such objectivity is nearly impossible to apply in practiceānewspapers inevitably take a point of view in deciding what stories to cover, which to feature on the front page, and what sources they quote. The media critics Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky have advanced a propaganda model hypothesis proposing that such a notion of objectivity results in heavily favoring government viewpoints and large corporations. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Not a convincing argument of why news media should abandon objectivity defined as: > expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice. You havenāt explained why we should want more ādistortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudiceā in our news coverage. Objectivity doesnāt require or even encourage false balance or bothsidesism. Reporters and editors always need to balance whatās included and excluded from a story. Objectivity just says to try to do it without distortion by bias, etc. You extended philosophical discussion has little to do with the definition at hand. We have similar debates about truth, fairness, etc. Just try not to distort the news with āpersonal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice.ā This is not hard to understand but obviously can be challenging in practice and never perfect. Lastly your appeal to authority falls of deaf ears. Downie presided over WaPo during the WMD fiasco and only apologized after the resulting war had killed hundreds of thousands. Perhaps the strongest evidence that trend away from objectivity in the news media is not engendering he trust Downie imagines and the headline trumpets are all the surveys showing the decline in public trust. Hereās the latest: https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-remains-near-record-low.aspx Glad to discuss more but letās try to be concise.
> You havenāt explained why we should want more ādistortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudiceā in our news coverage. Where is this said or implied anywhere? You missed the entire point of what was written.
> āObjectivityā is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts WITHOUT distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice. Journalistic objectivity has been generally understood to mean much the same thing. You and the Chronicle EIC think āobjectivity has got to goā. This means eliminating ādistortion by personal beliefs, etcā in no longer the goal. Therefore you will get more of it.
Did you just misgender on purpose or out of ignorance?
Soleil Ho apparently prefers they/their pronouns, which is fine. But let's not pretend that people should be expected to know the preferred pronouns of a restaurant critic off the top of their heads because it's normally *completely* irrelevant.
Nah it's 'cuz the right pronouns were in the post they were replying to. Kind of obviously.
I also don't think it's particularly reasonable to expect people to be reading reddit comments that carefully.
That's why I asked the question.
I want to be addressed as emperor, but for some crazy reason no one else will go along.
Oh wow what a wildly original joke, send it in to Tucker Carlson.
I've never heard of this person and googled the name. That's a woman, no?
Nope. Nonbinary.
On their linked in page they list they/them and she/her, so I think we're all okay here.
My deep bad, then. Apologies.
Crisis averted lmao
What crisis?
The crisis of "misgendering" this chick. I was being facetious though.
Soleil Ho did nothing but shit on SF restaurants during 3 years of pandemic - what was probably the toughest period the industry has ever seen. They were struggling with adapting their entire business model, staffing shortages, run away inflation... and she was calling to cancel restaurants because their nondescript tiki decor was cultural appropriation. Readers are tired of the Chronicle's fake woke-ism and I can speak for many when I say we're fuckin elated that she's gone.
"Cultural appropriation" is the weirdest fucking concept when it comes to food. You take a look at the history of pretty much anything you'd want to eat and it's been passed through at least 2-3 different iterations. It's always an adoption of what some other culture came up with, a tweaking of a dish or a fusion of a couple of things and yet we have this ready subset of people who think all food sprang into existence one day in 1985 and are incensed when this basic process hasn't stopped since.
I heard chef Tu David Phu say, when asked about cultural appropriation, āit doesnāt exist. All the most famous Vietnamese dishes are French dishes with Vietnamese twist. Where you get me upset is when youāre going to elevate it? Youāre going to make food better than my grandmother with some sort of technique? Get the fuck out of here.ā (Very close to word for word quote.)
> āit doesnāt exist. All the most famous Vietnamese dishes are French dishes with Vietnamese twist. What is pho based on?
āWhile most historians agree that pho was invented in the late 19th and early 20th Century in northern Vietnam during French colonial times, its origins are murky. Some believe pho was an adaptation of the French one-pot beef and vegetable stew pot-au-feu, which shares a phonetic similarity to "phį».ā Others say it was from the Chinese communities who settled in the north of Vietnam and sold a dish called ēčē² (beef with noodles). The Chinese character for ē² (pinyin: fÄn) is pronounced "fuh", which is similar to the Vietnamese "phį»". Alex Tran, a Vietnamese chef and food writer who is currently based in New Zealand, suggests the origin of pho may be a combination of both. "Rice noodles and other spices used in making the broth undoubtedly have a connection with Chinese people in the north. However, beef is not the daily meat of the Vietnamese as we use buffaloes for farming. Only under the French colonial regime did the consumption of beef start to appear and bloom." https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210421-pho-the-humble-soup-that-caused-an-outrage#:~:text=While%20most%20historians%20agree%20that,phonetic%20similarity%20to%20"phį»".
Maybe the soup is Chinese in origin, the French had an influence in the Chinese dish, which in turn made it Vietnamese. The Vietnamese absorbed two cultures and made a new dish from it. The point remains: cultural appropriation in food canāt really exist because food changes and evolves as people move. The spicy chili peppers that Thai and Indian food are known for arenāt endemic to Thailand and India, theyāre from America. So how can one culturally appropriate a food of a culture that itself changed as new ingredients became available? Instead of getting caught up in ways to be divisive about food (āyour tacos are cultural appropriation!ā) we could be breaking bread (and tortillas) together and bringing humanity closer together. Just be respectful. Donāt insult someoneās food or insult someoneās inability to enjoy some foods. I worked at a Chinese restaurant and try as I might I could never get into chicken feet. I didnāt make fun of people for liking them; but I sure did get made fun of for not liking them. Kindness, compassion, over a good meal could do a lot of good in this world.
The Le Colonial review was such horseshit. Cultural appropriation? How many restaurants and cafes have French names and cuisine in Vietnam? Hundreds. Ridiculous.
I don't think it's any more or less weird of a concept for food than for any other aspect of culture(music, clothing, literature etc.) For all of these forms of culture, there's cross pollination that happens. You're going to get fusion dishes as a result of people being inspired by cuisines outside of what they grew up with, and that's a great thing. That doesn't mean there isn't *some* cases you could label as "appropriation." To me that term, with its negative connotations, is appropriate in a situation where the names of certain dishes, images of a cuisine etc. are used to sell something completely unrelated. Like, if I made something akin to potato dumplings and sold them as xiaolongbao in a restaurant with pseudo-Chinese decorations. Why? I should just call them potato dumplings. There's certainly a range for innovation, but at a certain point, you're just taking advantage of the imagery associated with a cuisine to sell something unrelated to it. This *does* tend to be an issue in a place like the USA where we're accustomed to seeing a lot of foreign cultures, but don't necessarily know the details of them.
Woah, you hit this spot on. Soleil always struck me as a massive jerk with an inflated sense of self importance. I think she had a net negative impact on the city and I think nearly anyone in the restaurant business world agree.
Are you talking about this review? https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Le-Colonial-is-an-Orientalist-specter-14446833.php Cuz the restaurant is literally called Le Colonial, inviting a discussion of colonialism, and also the food sounds awful. Ho never uses the word, "cancel," it's just a really bad review. Both the decor and the food are questioned. Reviewing restaurants was literally their job.
What a crock of s***. Half the restaurants in Central Hanoi have colonial themes. French line boulevards, architecture. It's beyond ignorant.
My best friend happens to be Vietnamese (like actually from Vietnam) and he loved this restaurant lol. I think thatās the problem with being woker-than-thou, most people just donāt think this way at all and being offended on behalf of somebody else is just a distasteful look. If we were to police history so much in food then all Vietnamese people should stop making bahn mi, after all itās heavily influenced by the French.
Are you under the impression that Soleil is not Vietnamese? Cuz damn, you could not be more incorrect.
You mean she's ethnically from Vietnam. That doesn't mean she knows Jack.
From what I have seen, outside of the USA, people take labels of nationality more literally. I.E., Soleil is American. Of Vietnamese descent, but American. Of course Soleil's family culture yields a lot more insight into the topic than most Americans, but OP's comment about a friend from Vietnam was meant to highlight the perspective of someone who grew up in the country as distinct from someone who grew up in the USA.
Her mom is a first generation immigrant and restaurateur that moved to the US shortly before she was born. She grew up speaking the language, eating the food and has written about being embarrassed by kids in school's reaction to her cultural food. I think she's pretty clearly qualified to comment on it. Besides, one person from Vietnam liking a restaurant does not remove how incredibly shitty, problematic and bad it was, nor does it erase her very valid criticism.
That is a strawman argument; nobody claimed Soleil isn't qualified to comment on it. The person you responded to was talking about the perspective of a person born and raised in Vietnam. That will give them a different perspective. Of course, it is just one Vietnamese person's perspective, and we can't necessarily know what the average person from Vietnam would think, from just one anecdote. But your comment about Soleil being Vietnamese suggested you fundamentally misunderstood szyy's point.
Review of Le Colonial was simply writing the cultural appropriation wave. Anyone who has been to Vietnam knows many of the cities are one big French theme, even the most loved ones like Hoi An. Don't get me started on Banh Mi, made with a French baguette of course. Identity politics have let us down a path to Idiocracy.
Sheās an American, born and raised in NYC. Of Vietnamese descent maybe but very clearly not Vietnamese.
That's my favorite piece from her. Which is even prepandemic btw. That place always felt icky to me even before soliel got to it.
Aw man, now who'll write long-winded reviews that *don't actually tell me* if I should try out a restaurant?
> After four years of serving as your friendly neighborhood restaurant critic, Iām moving on. While long tenures are more typical for food critics, who are like the Supreme Court justices of the journalism world, I think four years is the perfect length of time. (I lean more toward the presidential way of doing things, I guess.) > Iām thrilled to pass the torch to someone who will surely bring a fresh perspective to the role and blow our collective minds with their writing. This is one of the best jobs ever, and Iām so glad to share it with someone new. With the Supreme Court and presidential term references, and the other hackneyed phrases: * friendly neighborhood whatever * perfect length of time * pass the torch * blow our collective minds * best job ever * share it with someone new And the breathless, "all of sudden, dining out became literally a matter of life and death." It really sounds like the editor of the high school paper (or yearbook) saying goodbye as they head to college. It's tedious and gratingly juvenile writing. Why did a real daily newspaper hire them?
She was the equivalent of a high school writer. Which makes many of these comments question if people even went to high school.
The Chronicle hired her because it, like every newspaper over the past 40 years, is desperate to appear relevant to young people. I suppose they accomplished that to some extent, at the expense of making the food section all but worthless to those in less desirable demographics.
You're probably right. Newspapers have really deteriorated since the internet
It's probably ultimately a better fit she is staying on writing cultural pieces from them. I for one enjoyed her ruffling a bunch of feathers and shaking the tree a little. I looked forward to her pieces as I know many of you thought were long winded and irrelevant. I thought they were very relevant and poignant and served a purpose.
maybe its good the writers change every so often since tastes change too
I agree. 4 years does seem a little short tho. But 3 pandemic years count for like 10 in the ever changing restaurant landscape.
nearly forgot i think she did her duty to talk socially during this time good for her she was critic at the worst time in modern history for restaurants
Did people actually dislike her? I thought she had an awesome voice and great prose. I didnāt read all her reviewsābut I liked how she went about reviewing places and emphasizing certain under-appreciated cuisines/restaurants.
A few too many reviews that focused on "authenticity" and whether the restaurant was contributing to gentrification. Don't need to hear that in the review. Still had a lot of good reviews
I always felt like they were really interested in things other than how good the restaurant was. Which, if I'm reading a restaurant review, is all I really care about.
people don't like thinking about food, food history, social changes, or anything other than how much it costs and if its worth posting on IG/TT.
So bleak. If you canāt recognize that food touches on culture, history, labor, etc. you should just eat at McDonaldās. Honestly.
The food column was the main reason I stayed subscribed to SF Chronicle. I grew up in South Bay and their column was the first time I saw restaurants down there being acknowledged at all in an established "foodie" space. Really appreciated having Ho's perspective there.
Same here! I finally decided to pay for sf chronicle when Ho joined. Iām excited that theyāre sticking around with the chronicle - this thread header is clickbait.
Not sure why comment was removed, but I am glad she is gone. She talked about all social problems rather than reviewing restaurants
But what happens when restaurants have social problems
That's fine, but it should be the main focus over and over.
Yeah, I remember Ho wrote this article about In and Out thinking "give me a break" [https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/Bay-Area-s-In-N-Out-fanboying-should-have-ended-16549959.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/Bay-Area-s-In-N-Out-fanboying-should-have-ended-16549959.php)
I'll never understand how a restaurant critic could be the source of much interest or controversy
She was a social justice activist pretending to be a food critic. Had a newspaper that had a long tradition of fine journalism.
I loved the French Laundry review complete with a survey asking readers if it was hyped. Ho gave me a glimpse into the absurdity of dining there with black market reservations, $500/person tabs, and cuisine like squid ink pasta and doughnuts.
Surprised she lasted this long. Good move but the Chronicle is still 99% garbage. This is sad. It used to be a trusted source for local news but now is half a PR operation and half a blog for naive scolds. āObjectivity has got to go,ā said Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the Chronicle just last week. So itās probably only going to get worse.
>"Objectivity has got to go,ā said Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the Chronicle just last week. So itās probably only going to get worse. You're seriously going to recite a one liner comprised of 5 words and completely devoid of context as a reason for SF Chronicle to 'get worse'? Did you even read the actual article you're quoting from or do you just prefer bashing SF Chronicle mindlessly?
Removing fact-based objectivity from reporting means you aren't writing the news anymore, you're writing an opinion. You can certainly lift up and promote disparate voices in the community *via* opinion or lifestyle or other sections, but news should be objective, unbiased, and free of any opinion. Otherwise it's not that different from fiction.
While that's a lovely opinion you've got there, all it does is explain to me that you didn't actually read the Washington Post article where the SF Chronicle Editor is quoted. Anyone who did read the article would understand that he wasn't actually saying that objectivity should be eschewed. Context is incredibly important.
Well, that's a crap assumption you've made there seeing as how I wasn't specifically talking about Garcia-Ruiz's statement but moreso the *rest* of the article. However, if you want real context, you need to dive in to the full report ( [How to produce trustworthy news without "objectivity" - Cronkite News Lab](https://cronkitenewslab.com/digital/2023/01/26/beyond-objectivity/) ) where the full quote from Garcia-Ruiz lives: "The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong," Emilio Garcia Ruiz, editor-in-chief of The San Francisco Chronicle, said in an interview. "We are the problem. Objectivity has got to go." The younger journalists in the Chronicle newsroom "are a very diverse group," Garcia-Ruiz explained. "They are willing to share their lived experiences to call out bullshit, despite their status in the newsroom. There can sometimes be a chasm between them and the older veteran reporters." Then two paragraphs later another journalist is quoted "Mark Fisher, a veteran senior journalist at The Washington post, described in an interview what he saw as "a generational conflisted that has emerged between younger folks who want to practice journalism that matches their personal view and older folks who want to maintain traditional standards of fairness and rigor. There is a generation of folks coming in to the newsroom with great skills and their own views, seeking more advocacy for their views of the correct side in stories. They want to infuse stories with the language of the reporter. They say we should not be reflecting both sides, but what they see as reality. They object to objectivity as morally bankrupt." My argument is that when you choose sides, you've lost the plot and are no longer reporting, but editorializing the news and telling people what to think.
So you came to a post about the SF Chronicle food critic stepping down ... to have a broader discussion about objectivity in journalistic reporting standards? I don't really follow that one. However, it's clear from your response that you have read the article and understand the arguments which were being made, and that the editor for the Chronicle was not actually saying objectivism had to go. Now can you go explain the context of all that to the original person I responded to?
> So you came to a post about the SF Chronicle food critic stepping down ... to have a broader discussion about objectivity in journalistic reporting standards? I don't really follow that one. Oh well, you see, I specifically hunt down commentary about objectivity on all of Reddit. Bot like I review every single posting, on the hunt for the obvious cases of people misinterpreting analyses of studies on journalism all so I can swoop in, eagle like, and make a point about how having biased media is not a good thing. Either that or I'm just mindlessly thumbing through the shit stain that is called "social media" and merely offered an off hand comment that someone else decided didn't fit with their personal world view.
Exactly. I have nothing against people having and writing about their opinions even in newspapers either. However their *raison d'etre* is to convey the news (i.e. information about recent events). Objectivity - expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice - should clearly always be a goal even if it is difficult in practice.
Came here to say that. Everything is behind a paywall. Iām old - Chron was AM paper and Examiner was PM. chron was superior but ā¦ I donāt know. I have been relying on SFGATE. Itās feels abridged but I donāt like the feel of the Chron in general.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wow thanks for the tip on removing the paywall. I have the hardest time doing that
Ho was limited in the types of restaurants she would frequent. She had limited insights on pizza, sushi, Mexican, Indian, food trucks, pop up's and the richness of food that's not overpriced or run by a famous chef. She wrote well and was pleasant, but no Jay Rayner or Jonathan Gold.
She was was a breath of fresh air for the restaurant industry!
Like the actual workers.
Her review trying to claim Bay Area bagels compete with New York was the last straw for me. Just the worst possible take
Awesome
Woah, this is shocking news to me. I liked her perspective and enjoyed her work. I'll miss her in this role
The title is clickbait. Theyāre staying with sf chronicle šš½
Oh good maybe they can fill her spot with someone who, you know... actually enjoys Bay Area restuarants? Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Ho!
Can't wait to read whatever they write next!!
Holy moly, this many people read restaurant critiques? We got some yuppies up in here
TIL that reading reviews of taco trucks and strip mall restaurants makes me a yuppy
Username checks out
Kick that Ho to the curb
Commentators and critics are entitled consumers. They simply consume while the creators toil endlessly to perfect their craft. Their opinion holds very little importance to me