Great spot on the Eater update. Whatever you think of Eater, no other mainstream publication (I think you can say Eater is mainstream) is going to come up with a list quite like that.
Re: restaurant critics - the Financial Times are using Rayner as subscription bait so they obviously feel that there is a future in the big names. I just feel that the (minor) celeb critic thing as a form feels massively outdated, hasn't changed for decades and that there has to be a better way to write a review and inform people about restaurants than the ego-centric personality-based reviews we still mostly see in the national press. I'm not sure what that is but I can feel a column coming on. . .
100% agree with you on Eater. I miss its day to day attention to London. And, as much as I love and value them, Hot Dinners just can't quite reach the same scale of impact IMHO.
And on the critics, I can't wait to read that column! I definitely don't know the answer. My only contribution is that I value informed, professional, authoritative perspectives that I can trust.
Thanks for the comment, and I appreciate the push. But, in response...Yeah. I do. What else would compare? I suppose I could have been a little more precise and said "biggest week in restaurant writing," or "the biggest news in restaurant / food writing" in decade or whatever. But, I'm comfortable with the wider claim, too. As I said, it's incredibly rare for a top national critic to step down. Unheard of for two to do it at the same time. Even more so for a third to come back to a national paper to take up a new role. Fold in fresh uncertainty about whether the Observer will fill their vacancy. It all adds up to big news, IMO.
I appreciate that a lot of people are dubious about the relevance of national critics, including a lot of people that I really admire. But I think they're still important, and they are certainly the most visible food writers in the UK. All of that adds up to significance for me.
I am reasonably confident that the FT got wind Rayner might be interested in leaving the Observer and made an opportunistic hire. (There was noise in the press that he was unhappy about the Tortoise deal.) I suspect Hayward was glad to have the chance to focus and drink topics beyond restaurants. And pulling in Marina at the same time was likewise opportunistic, but on the cards for a while. (She did a residency in the FT Magazine last summer. I suspect it was a mutual try-out.) When you add it all up, it's an incredible coup for the FT's editorial leadership, IMO.
Apologies for the typo in the original headline of this week's update. I know how to spell Tim's name. I promise! I blame stupid autocorrect.
Thank you for sharing my piece -- it's appreciated!
@Courtney Brandt is a friend and she will appreciate the shout out. Thank you 🙏🏾
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. x
Great spot on the Eater update. Whatever you think of Eater, no other mainstream publication (I think you can say Eater is mainstream) is going to come up with a list quite like that.
Re: restaurant critics - the Financial Times are using Rayner as subscription bait so they obviously feel that there is a future in the big names. I just feel that the (minor) celeb critic thing as a form feels massively outdated, hasn't changed for decades and that there has to be a better way to write a review and inform people about restaurants than the ego-centric personality-based reviews we still mostly see in the national press. I'm not sure what that is but I can feel a column coming on. . .
100% agree with you on Eater. I miss its day to day attention to London. And, as much as I love and value them, Hot Dinners just can't quite reach the same scale of impact IMHO.
And on the critics, I can't wait to read that column! I definitely don't know the answer. My only contribution is that I value informed, professional, authoritative perspectives that I can trust.
Do you *genuinely* believe this is the biggest week in food writing? 😳
Thanks for the comment, and I appreciate the push. But, in response...Yeah. I do. What else would compare? I suppose I could have been a little more precise and said "biggest week in restaurant writing," or "the biggest news in restaurant / food writing" in decade or whatever. But, I'm comfortable with the wider claim, too. As I said, it's incredibly rare for a top national critic to step down. Unheard of for two to do it at the same time. Even more so for a third to come back to a national paper to take up a new role. Fold in fresh uncertainty about whether the Observer will fill their vacancy. It all adds up to big news, IMO.
I appreciate that a lot of people are dubious about the relevance of national critics, including a lot of people that I really admire. But I think they're still important, and they are certainly the most visible food writers in the UK. All of that adds up to significance for me.
Fair enough. Certainly Rayner’s switch is interesting. Might be interesting to find out if he was the FT’s first choice?
I am reasonably confident that the FT got wind Rayner might be interested in leaving the Observer and made an opportunistic hire. (There was noise in the press that he was unhappy about the Tortoise deal.) I suspect Hayward was glad to have the chance to focus and drink topics beyond restaurants. And pulling in Marina at the same time was likewise opportunistic, but on the cards for a while. (She did a residency in the FT Magazine last summer. I suspect it was a mutual try-out.) When you add it all up, it's an incredible coup for the FT's editorial leadership, IMO.
Not quite that straightforward but almost.