Critics React to L.V. Anderson's Take on Expense Accounts

Slate's L.V. Anderson responds to Robert Sietsema's post on Eater about the state of restaurant writing these days, and how shrinking budgets are affecting food criticism. Anderson boldly argues that critics shouldn't get expense accounts. From the post:

The fact that restaurant critics have expense accounts undoubtedly affects their experience at restaurants. That's because buying something on your boss's dime is a very different psychological experience from paying for something out of your own pocket, whether you're using a company credit card or filing an expense report later. If it's a restaurant critic's duty to convey what it's like for a normal schmo to dine at a restaurant, then the existence of a reviewing budget contradicts that duty.

Anderson also suggests that critics should get higher salaries and pay out of pocket for their review meals:

So let's assume for the sake of argument that Pete Wells currently makes $100,000 in salary and has an $80,000 reviewing budget. What if the New York Times started paying Wells $180,000 instead—and expected him to pay for meals out of his salary? Perhaps his reviews would not be so different from how they are now. But his experience of going to a restaurant, evaluating the prices on the menu, and paying for the bill at the end of the meal would be much more similar to the experience of an average diner.

Anderson's post has sparked a big debate on Twitter about expense accounts for critics. Here are reactions from Steve Cuozzo, Ryan Sutton, Pete Wells, and others:

Bloomberg's Ryan Sutton:

Restaurant critics shouldn't get expense accounts says @slate in an absolutely absurd piece of journalism: http://t.co/Cw9qT8shjX

— ryan sutton (@qualityrye) August 16, 2013

If we had to review restaurants on our own dime, we'd end up eating at the same 10 places we love every month. Why risk $$$ on uncertainty?

— ryan sutton (@qualityrye) August 16, 2013

Anyone who's been dragged to a bad restaurant on a date or client dinner knows that a wasted evening is just as painful as wasted cash.

— ryan sutton (@qualityrye) August 16, 2013

Spending your own money is easy. Spending someone else's money is one of the most frightening things in the world.

— ryan sutton (@qualityrye) August 16, 2013

The Post's Steve Cuozzo:

@qualityrye @Slate He makes a point reasonable sounding on its face but overwhelmed by enuf other, stronger points as to make it bananas

— Steve Cuozzo (@stevecuozzo) August 16, 2013

Times critic Pete Wells:

The best part about taking away the expense accounts for restaurant critics would be all the free time we'd have.

— Pete Wells (@pete_wells) August 16, 2013

Food writer Michael Nagrant:

Maybe it's the lower middle class midwesterner I grew up as, but I agonize over every dining dollar I spend, even if it's not mine.

— Michael Nagrant (@MichaelNagrant) August 16, 2013

The New Yorker's Matt Buchanan:

@lv_anderson @qualityrye should I be paid $300,000 a year to review $2000 laptops and $600 phones?

— matt (@mattbuchanan) August 16, 2013

Serious Eats editor Max Falkowitz:

Let me take a new business account out on my own dime okay guess it's Chinese takeout again because that's all I can afford.

— Max Falkowitz (@maxfalkowitz) August 16, 2013

· Restaurant Critics Shouldn't Get Expense Accounts [Slate]
· Sietsema on the Current State of Restaurant Criticism [~EN~]