Vetri vs. food critics: It's war

Marc Vetri lit a match, heated the griddle, went to work - and food critics would have none of it.

Vetri - never one to shy from his opinions on such subjects as wheat farming, gluten allergies and restaurant week - called out food journalism, food journalists and in particular restaurant critics Tuesday in a rant on Huffington Post.

He described a series of ills and wrongs, alleging a lowering of standards and decrying a move toward "click-y" online content, including "best of" lists and "listicles" at the expense of in-depth stories.

Journalists, as you might imagine, were quick to respond.

The Inquirer's Craig LaBan addressed Vetri's remarks in his usual Tuesday online chat. "Our dining world is in drastic flux and evolution – and has been for decades," LaBan wrote, countering Vetri's assertion that BYOBs and fine-dining venues should not be graded on the same scale. "Any rating system has to reflect what's important to the context of the dining scene it covers. Our readers aren't interested in just the 'fine dining venues' (whatever that means, anymore) – they want to taste the whole picture. And so do I."

LaBan also took issue with Vetri's allegation that LaBan is indulging in "journalistic bullying" by revisiting certain restaurants and changing the number of "bells" he awards. This was a reference to Vetri's Osteria in Moorestown, from which LaBan shaved a bell last fall. LaBan said bell counts are adjusted in his best attempt to keep the ratings as current and accurate as possible. "A note to me from Vetri shortly after the downgrade acknowledged there were issues they were working to remedy," LaBan wrote. Was this, as Vetri contends,  a "continuing campaign to make the lives of chefs more miserable"?

More viotriolic was Jason Sheenan's profanity-laced rebuttal for Philadelphia Magazine (which LaBan later retweeted with the comment, "Yup. This pretty much sums it up").

Under the headline "Philly's angry grandpa," Sheehan lights up to counter that "the old system vastly favored the venerable, the entrenched, the well-known and the well-financed." As in, Vetri. His summation: "No food writer who matters works on behalf of the industry. We're not boosters or cheerleaders and we owe you nothing. We write for the people who go to your restaurants and everyone else's restaurants, full stop."

Helen Rosner of Eater thoughtfully called Vetri's arguments "the same anti-internet Andy Rooneyism that those of us who make our livings via this medium have been dealing with for ages."

Rosner writes that "Vetri ascribes a maliciousness to restaurant critics that verges on paranoid, citing their 'continuing campaign to make the lives of chefs more miserable.' But he's getting the angle wrong. Critics aren't trying to make chefs' lives worse. They're trying to make their readers' lives better."

Rosner believes that Vetri is frustrated that the Internet "ruined everything. He was the crown jewel of the Philadelphia restaurant scene for a long time, and then the city underwent its recent culinary renaissance and he and his restaurants stopped being mentioned in every single story. (You think his jab at a hummus restaurant getting three stars sounds random? You haven't been paying attention to the rocket-like ascent of Philly's new golden boy, Mike Solomonov.) But a story railing against listicles (published in, ahem, the Huffington Post) isn't going to move the needle on anything. If Vetri wants to like journalists again — which is to say, he wants them writing about him, and he wants them writing nice things — all he's got to do is get out there and do something newsworthy."

Asked for follow-up Wednesday, Vetri replied: "If someone wants to have a logical discussion, I'm all for it. But people just want to attack. I got more important things to do. I wrote a thoughtful article about an issue that every chef thinks about...that's all. writers can deal with it or not."

At least there is room for humor, via the New York Times' Pete Wells: