Blog mention of L'ville in Gourmet

strongly suggests to the average reader (i.e., me)

Faulty premise leads to faulty conclusion.

[Robin Garr]

strongly suggests to the average reader (i.e., me)

Faulty premise leads to faulty conclusion.

Blog or no blog, you guys are sure going easy on Epicurious/Gourmet. I'm still groping for an analogy here. If you went to Proof for the midday meal and had horrible food, would you say, "Don't knock it, it's just lunch"?

I think the real reason that it doesn't matter is because no one expects accurate or truthful reporting from the media anymore. What difference does it make if WHAS offers information on a blog that is not subject to credible sources or fact checking? The people reading it don't care anyway.

The people reading it don't care anyway.

Watch the gross generalizations. I do care about responsibile journalism, and I think Mark practices it. That he has a blog that has a different character that is interesting to read doesn't mean that his journalistic standards have crashed and burned.

But that's not what he did. Re-read the original blog post.

Funny, because I did, in fact, re-read the original blog post just before making that response for fear that I had missed something. I didn't feel like I had, but I'm more than willing to consider your analysis. I hope you'll forgive the break down of the post here, I'm not trying to nitpick but it's helpful for me to keep discussion neater by responding point by point.

He wrote a short blog entry starting with a broad premise: that Louisville is lightly regarded on the national food scene and lags behind Nashville or Charleston in the public perception. Without going into whether this is a dubious claim (although I think it is), he then asserts that he has "discovered" that Louisvile is "catching up with" those places.

That's an interesting reading of the intro and completely different from mine. His claim that we lag behind those three in perception and coverage seems pretty much on target to me and not really in need of defending. It's not a criticism of Louisville or our dining scene afterall. And he makes no indication, implicitly or explicitly, that he has "discovered" that we are "catching up" with those places. I merely read that Louisville is worthy of the same attention and praise given to New Orleans, Charleston, and Nashville.

He immediately followed that with one-sentence mini-reviews of three good but hardly random or typical eateries. The juxtaposition of his commentary and three specific mini-reviews strongly suggests to the average reader (i.e., me) that he considers them representative of the city's dining scene. They're not. And even a one-sentence mention of a few places like Proof, Seviche and Mojito would have gone a long way to clear that up.

I don't understand, would it have been better if they were random? Is that intended as a criticism for the selection process? And what is typical? I don't think Proof, Seviche and Mojito are typical by any means... if anything I think we benefit from there being no "typical" Louisville restaurant.

Honestly, I felt the phrase which lead into the minireviews kept things perfectly clear: "Among the highlights:" In other words, 'here were some things I particularly enjoyed.'

Alternatively, he could have solved the problem completely by dropping his news-style intro, which raised expectations, and simply blogging, "I visited Louisville last week and visited three really nice places to eat. They were ... "

But by framing it as a more serious food trend story, he then created a stronger duty to support his hypothesis. Yes, even if it was "just a blog."

Hmm. From the very first line ("I don't get it.") it doesn't read to me like the framing of a serious food trend story.

I think this one is just down to individual interpretation of his intentions.

I think the real reason that it doesn't matter is because no one expects accurate or truthful reporting from the media anymore. What difference does it make if WHAS offers information on a blog that is not subject to credible sources or fact checking? The people reading it don't care anyway.

I understand your position on those topics, but that's really a separate matter. This isn't a case of accuracy, truth, credible sources, or incorrect facts. Even informal blog entries have a responsibility on that front, and to correct inaccuracies when they occur.

The people reading it don't care anyway.

Watch the gross generalizations. I do care about responsibile journalism, and I think Mark practices it. That he has a blog that has a different character that is interesting to read doesn't mean that his journalistic standards have crashed and burned.

Charles, this isn't about Mark Hebert. I don't know anything about his blog in particular and I have no opinion about him in general. I stand by my position. I might be a "gross generalization" but it is an accurate one. People don't care if a blog by a journalist is subject to less stringent standards than his or her column in the newspaper. I think this thread more than makes that point.

I think the real reason that it doesn't matter is because no one expects accurate or truthful reporting from the media anymore. What difference does it make if WHAS offers information on a blog that is not subject to credible sources or fact checking? The people reading it don't care anyway.

I understand your position on those topics, but that's really a separate matter. This isn't a case of accuracy, truth, credible sources, or incorrect facts. Even informal blog entries have a responsibility on that front, and to correct inaccuracies when they occur.

This is a case of accuracy. Robin felt that John T's piece was not an accurate summary of the dining scene in Louisville. But, that wasn't my point. My point was that people don't care if blogs are accurate or not.

This is a case of accuracy. Robin felt that John T's piece was not an accurate summary of the dining scene in Louisville. But, that wasn't my point. My point was that people don't care if blogs are accurate or not.

Edge's piece wasn't a summary of Louisville at all, though apparently that's what Robin felt it should have been. That doesn't make the entry inaccurate.

Regarding your point - it was my understanding you were suggesting the reason why we have find no fault with the entry is because people don't care if blogs are accurate or not. Perhaps I read to much into it. But given your other followup, I don't think I did.

This is a case of accuracy. Robin felt that John T's piece was not an accurate summary of the dining scene in Louisville. But, that wasn't my point. My point was that people don't care if blogs are accurate or not.

it was my understanding you were suggesting the reason why we have find no fault with the entry is because people don't care if blogs are accurate or not.

correct.

it was my understanding you were suggesting the reason why we have find no fault with the entry is because people don't care if blogs are accurate or not.

correct.

Then my original statement stands. The entry is not inaccurate and the issue isn't about accuracy... it's about opinion on what the entry should be, which is a decision that rests entirely with the author and the editors of the site. I'm rather insulted by your accusations about my expectations of journalistic integrity, but I'm not entirely surprised either.

There's no genre confusion on my part, Charles. Believe me, I know what a blog is.

Oh well. I don't think this argument is your best moment.

I don't think that comment was necessary for the sake of argument.

it was my understanding you were suggesting the reason why we have find no fault with the entry is because people don't care if blogs are accurate or not.

correct.

I'm rather insulted by your accusations about my expectations of journalistic integrity, but I'm not entirely surprised either.

Aaron, not everything I write on this site is about you.

Here is my original comment on the topic:

I think the real reason that it doesn't matter is because no one expects accurate or truthful reporting from the media anymore. What difference does it make if WHAS offers information on a blog that is not subject to credible sources or fact checking? The people reading it don't care anyway.

please note that it is not addressed to you.

Aaron, not everything I write on this site is about you.

Here is my original comment on the topic:

I think the real reason that it doesn't matter is because no one expects accurate or truthful reporting from the media anymore. What difference does it make if WHAS offers information on a blog that is not subject to credible sources or fact checking? The people reading it don't care anyway.

please note that it is not addressed to you.

*sigh* No, not about me directly. However you were addressing, generally, the people in this thread who find no fault with the blog entry. That's made perfectly clear when you follow the above statement with:

Charles, this isn't about Mark Hebert. I don't know anything about his blog in particular and I have no opinion about him in general. I stand by my position. I might be a "gross generalization" but it is an accurate one. People don't care if a blog by a journalist is subject to less stringent standards than his or her column in the newspaper. I think this thread more than makes that point.

Along with confirming that it was your intention to state that those in this thread who are ok with the entry in question are so because we don't care about blogs being true (and by association journalism in general), the situation here is pretty clear. So about me, specifically? No. But I am part of that group you villify, hence my my response.

Honestly, Ron, as much as it may surprise you, I respect a lot of what you say on this forum about food and restaurants in general; you are very knowledgeable. I just wish things like this didn't need to take an adversarial turn. I see it as a basic difference in opinion and that lacks judgement about the opposing side. But you apparently see it as a dumbing down of the audience, namely the people who disagree with you. How can we as individuals not be offended by that?

Aaron, not everything I write on this site is about you.

Here is my original comment on the topic:

I think the real reason that it doesn't matter is because no one expects accurate or truthful reporting from the media anymore. What difference does it make if WHAS offers information on a blog that is not subject to credible sources or fact checking? The people reading it don't care anyway.

please note that it is not addressed to you.

*sigh* No, not about me directly. However you were addressing, generally, the people in this thread who find no fault with the blog entry. That's made perfectly clear when you follow the above statement with:

Charles, this isn't about Mark Hebert. I don't know anything about his blog in particular and I have no opinion about him in general. I stand by my position. I might be a "gross generalization" but it is an accurate one. People don't care if a blog by a journalist is subject to less stringent standards than his or her column in the newspaper. I think this thread more than makes that point.

Along with confirming that it was your intention to state that those in this thread who are ok with the entry in question are so because we don't care about blogs being true (and by association journalism in general), the situation here is pretty clear. So about me, specifically? No. But I am part of that group you villify, hence my my response.

Honestly, Ron, as much as it may surprise you, I respect a lot of what you say on this forum about food and restaurants in general; you are very knowledgeable. I just wish things like this didn't need to take an adversarial turn. I see it as a basic difference in opinion and that lacks judgement about the opposing side. But you apparently see it as a dumbing down of the audience, namely the people who disagree with you. How can we as individuals not be offended by that?

all I said is this:

I think the real reason that it doesn't matter is because no one expects accurate or truthful reporting from the media anymore. What difference does it make if WHAS offers information on a blog that is not subject to credible sources or fact checking? The people reading it don't care anyway.

Sorry that hurt your feelings.