[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So basically you're emplying that the average joe/ unwashed masses are served one type of food while restaurant critics get the good stuff (I assume they keep it in the back) thus the need for restaurant critic annomymity, thereby not allowing the restaurant to hoodwink said critic by serving him the good stuff and all the time he thinks that this is what EVERYONE gets to eat.
.... hmmm... those sneaky little buggers. Who knew?

Well thats it! Next time I go out to a restaurant I'm going to DEMAND I be served the good stuff that they save for restaurant critics, like Mr Gilchrist.

Oh Rerun. You are so helpless sometimes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec...ritic-20101223

If restaurant staffers know you're a critic with wide readership, Virbila said, they change their behavior and sometimes even serve different food. Essentially, "it's not an accurate representation of the restaurant."

http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Food-Critic

Don't become recognizable. Anonymity is important to the career of a food critic; once people know who you are, they'll try especially hard to make sure you enjoy their food which, while nice, can interfere with your review of the food. After all, your readers won't get that kind of treatment, and your job is to let them know what they can expect as an average person, not a food critic. [2]
Make reservations under a fake name (or else they might recognize your real name with what's published in the paper) and keep a low profile (don't go to benefits, wine dinners, or other gatherings
Don't appear on television or participate as a celebrity in events; don't accept offers to try a chef's cuisine).
Failing to keep your anonymity intact may warrant a lot of criticism from readers.[3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1473733.html

While the discussion over restaurant criticism and anonymity is seemingly endless and often rehashed, most major newspapers still attempt at hiding their critics' appearances, despite the increased challenges with such a social sharing-friendly world (see: Eater's "To Catch A Critic"). Still, there remains a compelling argument for not having a mug shot out there -- one can't help but be reminded of Ruth Reichl's famous 1993 review of Le Cirque in which she goes in disguised and has a dramatically different experience than when she was recognized as herself.

But 1993 is a long time away from 2012 and the food world has changed significantly. Critics aren't just expected to critique. They are often required to blog and engage with readers much more directly, as Schaffer explained to the Washington Post. They are required to know chefs, yet avoid actually knowing them personally.

As new -- and younger -- critics are hired, it may simply become impossible to mask their identity. What 20 or 30-something isn't on Facebook these days? New York Times critic Pete Wells isn't advertising what he looks like, but as he lived in the world of digital media before becoming the paper's restaurant critic, he isn't exactly a mystery man. Nor was Sam Sifton before him.

http://la.eater.com/archives/2012/05...circa_2005.php

Rodell once wrote a piece for Creative Loafing titled "Dining critic anonymity: the hard truth" where she states her case on anonymous restaurant critics: "I reject the notion that anonymity doesn't matter. I notice a palpable change when I've been recognized at a restaurant. Sometimes it makes no difference – the better the restaurant the truer this is. If service and food are genuinely stellar, they'll be stellar for everyone. But sometimes it makes a world of difference...While many of the chefs in town [Atlanta] know what I look like, and although I am occasionally recognized, I don't think that's the end of the battle. I haven't yet taken to wearing disguises (mainly because it seems silly, self-important and probably futile), but I don't let the game end just because I'm identifiable." Have a more recent Rodell photo, do send it our way.

http://eater.com/archives/2010/04/19...ield-guide.php

It's a reality that restaurant reviews from print media publications continue to hold the most authority in the food world. And while some critics downplay the importance of anonymity, the argument can be made that knowing a critic is in the house can help chefs and business owners present their restaurant in the best way possible.

Somehow, a fair amount of critics have successfully avoided having their photographs made public.

http://www.openfile.ca/halifax/halif...aurant-critics

In 2005, Ruth Reichl published Garlic and Sapphires: The Secret Life Of A Critic in Disguise about her experience as restaurant critic for The New York Times. In it she details the myriad ways—wigs, costumes and makeup lessons—she worked to make herself as anonymous as possible.

But is it possible to be anonymous as a food critic when social media and our increased online presence has changed the way we view—and allow others to view—our lives?

Facebook and Twitter have changed the way we curate our private lives. For most people, this is a non-issue, but for food critics, staying anonymous has always been a major concern.

“I think that the reader of a restaurant review wants the person to be an everyman (or everywoman) who gets the same treatment they do, and nine times out of ten, that experience is an anonymous one,” says Melissa Buote. Melissa is the food critic for The Coast and has been writing about food for the past two and half years. (Full disclosure: Buote and I also write for the same food blog, Passable.ca)

To maintain her anonymity, Melissa strictly limits access to her Facebook profile—even using a pseudonym—and her Twitter profile shows a picture of a cat.