I’ve been reviewing restaurants so long, with the ethics of it so bred into me, I forget sometimes that readers aren’t as aware of the rulebook.

Neither are restaurateurs, one of whom contacted me last week to find out why his establishment didn’t appear on a recommended list. The restaurants that made it, they paid you, right? he said.

Something inside me died a little. No! I corrected him. Perhaps a little too loudly.   

No business can buy a review from Seattle Met, period. Maybe the restaurants I review advertise with us, maybe they don’t---I don’t know and I don’t care. I have no idea what happens in other publications, but in ours, it wouldn’t even occur to the ad salespeople to offer editorial coverage to clients or prospective clients.

They know that if they did, they’d be diminishing the quality of the very product they’re selling.

I’m pretty vocal about the value of critical anonymity, but I haven’t made as big a noise over critical independence—I guess because I see it as an even bigger duh. This is by no means unique to me; for years critical independence has been industry standard. The reason is simple: If a restaurant could influence its own coverage, restaurant reviews would be advertisements and readers would not be served with candor. My highest goal is candor.

One time this is frequently misconstrued is in my annual Restaurant of the Year pick, in which my appraisal focuses more than usual on the positives of the chosen place. When readers disagree with my choice—which is inevitable, and a welcome starting point for debate—they sometimes accuse me of being in bed with the restaurant. This happened last fall with my pick of Loulay, which a few chatrooms declared unworthy of the honor—and me, therefore, clearly in league with the restaurant. Nope. I genuinely admire the place, for these reasons.

Okay—but do restaurants pay for my meals? No again. Seattle Met pays for all my restaurant meals. Restaurateurs frequently try, calling with offers of freebies or sending gift cards after, but the former I always reject (there would go both independence and anonymity) and the latter I always toss out. Appreciate the gesture, folks, but can’t in any way be in your debt.

Okay—but why do all the critics in town seem to be on the same schedule of reviewing the same places? This one’s pure logistics. A certain number of restaurants open every month, with some standing out off the top as ones to watch—an acclaimed chef, perhaps, or a unique concept, or a “talk-of-the-town” reputation. Of these, visits begin to reveal which are really commendable, or at least worthiest of comment—and these are the ones that generally land on the critic’s lists. The best critics will let restaurants work out their kinks for a certain number of weeks before making on-the-clock visits; I’ll wait about six weeks. As a result, reviews often cluster into the same time period.

Sometimes this results in some truly harmonic convergences. I make it a point to not read the local critics, so as to not color my opinions, but recently I learned that the restaurant critic at Seattle Weekly also produced a review comparing the do-overs at Vespolina and Hommage, as I did in our February issue. They hit the stands within days of each other. Maybe it's a coincidence---or maybe it's just an obvious story angle in what is still a pretty small city. 

Other questions? Put them in the comments section and I’ll address them in future posts.