Adjudication No. 245 (July 1985) [1985] APC 37

ADJUDICATION No. 245 (July 1985)

Mr M. Velhagen, the proprietor of the Strasbourg restaurant, complains about an article concerning his restaurant published in the Northern Herald on 29 November 1984. The article, by Jenna Price, was headed "Waiting for Godot and sozzled snails" and gave a very unfavourable account of a visit to the restaurant. Mr Velhagen contends that the article is inaccurate and unfair.

The practice of writing reviews of restaurants on the basis of a single unannounced and preferably anonymous visit to a restaurant is well established. In a letter to the Press Council about the present case, the Restaurant and Catering Association, New South Wales, has stated that the subject of restaurant reviews has long concerned the association in view of the damage which an unfavourable and perhaps unjust review can cause. We can understand this concern. The reviewer exercises enormous power to inflict damage, and those who undertake the task carry a commensurate responsibility to be fair and to be very careful of facts and judgments on which an unfavourable report is based. The risks of unfairness are particularly great because of the subjective nature of the judgment involved, and the fact that it may be influenced by factors peculiar to the night, such as unusual difficulties in the restaurant or even the mood of the reviewer. There are also the temptations arising from the fact that it is much easier to write amusingly and interestingly in making an unfavourable review than a favourable or neutral one.

On the other hand, a reviewer has a duty to the readers who will rely on the honesty and frankness of the report. It would be highly undesirable if only favourable reports were published or reviewers were discouraged from expressing honest and reasonable opinions from fear of consequences to themselves or the paper.

The Press Council is not attempting to lay down any particular rules, but it does urge newspapers to consider the potential consequences of what they publish and to act with an appropriate degree of care on the one hand, and independence on the other.

Complaints about such reviews present great difficulty of adjudication for the Press Council. It is difficult to settle conflicts as to what things were like on some past evening in a restaurant, or to determine what lay behind a subjective judgment.

In fairness to Mr Velhagen we should say that a number of matters give us concern, as suggesting a readiness to seize on anything, however trivial, to put the restaurant in an unfavourable light. The tone is set by the opening: "The Strasbourg was terribly jolly when we entered, packed to the gills at a quarter to eight. In the centre of the room was this enormous table of women, most of whom seemed to be smokers". This immediately creates an unfavourable impression, but the presence of "this enormous table of women" and their smoking habits on that night, which receives such prominence, is surely an accident of the particular evening beyond the control of the proprietor. By way of ironic contrast to delays in the arrival of food the review says: "Mind you, we had absolutely no trouble in getting our $3 beers", but does not mention that the beers were imported. Complimentary crudites are mentioned, "accompanied by a dip I wouldn't recommend for a sheep", but complimentary sorbets are not. The price of chicken is overstated and the number of waiters understated.

Sarcasm is directed at a waitress who has to correct her statement of the soup of the day from pumpkin to spinach, and who describes the service as a la carte instead of a la minute. Despite the space devoted to such unfavourable trivialities, nothing whatever receives a favourable mention.

However the reviewer assures us that the report is an accurate account of her honest reaction to the restaurant. We have no basis for rejecting her assurance.

While the Press Council feels some sympathy for Mr Velhagen, it is unable to uphold the complaint.