Journalistic integrity or arbiter of taste? The case study of restaurant critic Peter Calder Warren Goodsir * , Lindsay Neill, David Williamson, Alan Brown School of Hospitality and Tourism, Faculty of Applied Humanities, AUT University, New Zealand article info Article history: Received 8 December 2013 Received in revised form 21 August 2014 Accepted 26 September 2014 Available online Keywords: Restaurant review Critic Journalistic integrity Online review abstract In these times of interactive IT it seems that ‘almost anyone’ has the potential to become a restaurant critic. However, with growing public interest in food and dining out, the opinions of dedicated food critics are important because they sidestep the opinions of friends, advertising and marketing, and can convince potential consumers to either participate voluntarily as customers, or avoid a potentially bad dining experience altogether. In light of this, our paper illuminates the critical perspective of Peter Calder, one of New Zealand's most well-known restaurant reviewers. The discussion reveals the style of review adopted by Calder, as well as his raison d’^ etre. Because this paper reflects the views and opinions of a single research participant, its generalizability is limited however the research provides a ‘thick description’ of Calder's reviewing strategy. Calder's work is fuelled by journalistic integrity rather than a preoccupation with dining out or the hospitality industry. This makes Calder's perspective unique. This paper distils how Calder creates his narratives that have, over time, led to a loyal readership. This insight adds to our understanding of the importance of restaurant critics, and, within this case study, how critics view themselves. © 2014 The Authors. 1. Introduction ‘Sir, I am seated in the smallest room in the house. Your review is before me. Shortly it will be behind me.’ German composer Max Reger responding to a critic. (Dukore, 1994) In choosing dining venues consumers are caught in a bind: do they rely on word of mouth, word of ‘mouse’ (online reviews), or take the plunge and try an unknown restaurant? This tension is exacerbated by the often negative and sometimes scathing feed- back diners present (often anonymously) online. In New Zealand and Australia (Bay of Plenty Times, 2014; Goodfood.com, 2014), online reviews have come under scrutiny. This scrutiny reflects concern from restaurateurs about online review holders' unwillingness to take responsibility for online feedback and their reluctance to amend incorrect online information. Typifying the online impasse while adding a note of reality to the situation, one Australian consumer commented: ‘I do think that reviews on restaurants should have a shelf life! Menus change, staff change, even owners change, but the mud sticks forever it seems.’ (Goodfood.com, 2014, n.p.). Because online reviews are fraught with such difficulties we assert that this situation creates renewed interest in a restaurant review format that was once the ‘final word’ on restaurant quality: that is, the restaurant reviewer. The power of the media is such that restaurants can be posi- tively and negatively impacted on by restaurant reviewers. As the current online controversy attests, reviews that are professionally or publically generated have the ability to engender strong emo- tions in business owners, the media and consumers (Blank, 2007). However, restaurant reviews can be a double-edged sword, holding the potential for both doom or stardom, or the many points inbetween. The potential for restaurant stardom means that awards, recognition and high rankings from restaurant reviews are highly sought after by restaurants to bestow a point of difference in a highly competitive commercial marketplace. For most restau- rants, the highest accolade is a Michelin star, with progression potential to three Michelin stars. Conversely, the potential down- grading of a Michelin star can be perceived as catastrophic, as the * Corresponding author. School of Hospitality and Tourism, Faculty of Applied Humanities, AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1010, New Zealand. Tel.: þ64 9 921 9999. E-mail addresses: warren.goodsir@aut.ac.nz (W. Goodsir), lindsay.neill@aut.ac. nz (L. Neill), david.williamson@aut.ac.nz (D. Williamson), abrown@aut.ac.nz (A. Brown). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-hospitality- and-tourism-management http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.09.001 1447-6770/© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 127e133