DATE: Sunday, August 3, 1997                TAG: 9708010022

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J5   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM

                                            LENGTH:   97 lines

REPORT TO READERS IS CRITICAL REVIEW AN UNJUST DESSERT?

Readers are quick to let us know when a story is in poor taste. But last Sunday, a Flavor review left a bad taste in the mouths of more than two dozen people.

It was a review of Tandom's Pine Tree Inn in Virginia Beach. And the all-caps headline left no doubt where the reviewer stood: ``Despite reputation, venerable eatery disappoints.''

Immediately, calls came in from longtime and satisfied customers of the restaurant - all expressing outrage or disappointment about the review of Tandom's and its harsh ratings: Out of 5 stars, it got a 0 for food and a 1/2 star overall.

``I've been going there for over 20 years and think it's one of the best restaurants in town,'' said George Moore.

``I don't know where this lady ate,'' said John Irby, referring to Flavor editor Ruth Fantasia, ``but it doesn't sound like the same restaurant I've been eating in since I'm a year old.''

Readers also raised questions: Did the reviewer have a grudge against the restaurant? Why didn't Fantasia send her food back to the kitchen, if it was so bad? Why bring a child to a restaurant? What are her qualifications?

Andrea Gengler, whose husband owns Tandom's, called the review a ``terrible injustice,'' with its ``bold and slashing'' headline and dismal ratings. The review is ``just devastating to a fine dining restaurant that has served the area for 30 years,'' said Gengler.

Fantasia said the decision to run the review was not taken lightly. It was discussed and reviewed with the newspaper's editor, a deputy managing editor and the features editor. Yes, there was concern on the impact to the restaurant, said Fantasia, but the consensus was that service to readers came first.

Certainly, there is a place for critical reviews, whether they're about movies, concerts, art exhibits or restaurants. If every review were positive, why bother reviewing?

But this one came as a shock because there was no recent precedent in Flavor for such criticism and low ratings. And the headline was, indeed, the biggest and boldest on any recent restaurant review.

That bothered me. In fact, since it was so out of character, I felt it could have been downplayed or run inside the section. Some newspapers, in fact, do not run negative reviews - or they write non-judgmental headlines.

Does this review signal a shift in Flavor policy?

Yes and no. Back some years ago, food critic Chuck Martin caused the silverware to rattle at some local eateries with his candid reviews. But more recently, said Fantasia, negative restaurant reviews were watered down or not run at all.

Fantasia said that has not been her approach since taking over as Flavor editor in May '96. And it won't be her approach in the future.

``They will be honest reviews,'' she said. ``I don't want them to be mean-spirited but they will be honest. After reading the review, you will know what to expect from that restaurant.''

Then there's the star ratings system, which was begun in February and explained in a sidebar last Sunday. (Five stars is ``unforgettable,'' 0 stars ``disappointing, not recommended.'') Before the ``star system,'' Pilot reviewers dined once at a restaurant, returning only if it was a bad experience.

All restaurants now are reviewed twice, with five or six meals ordered. This way, said Fantasia, a restaurant doesn't lose or earn stars because of one bad, or good, night. All meals are unannounced and at newspaper expense, with reviews running every other week.

But to answer the questions raised by readers:

Fantasia said she does not have any grudge against Tandom's. As she noted in the review, she worked there in the '70s, but for a different owner. She recalls her 5-year part-time stint there - from dishwasher and salad chef to waitress and hostess - as a positive experience.

Usually, only new restaurants are reviewed or those with new chefs or other changes. But Fantasia said she heard criticism for just doing the ``new trendy places'' and tries to review one older, established restaurant every couple of months. Tandom's, she said, was picked ``out of a hat.'' Last September, Ship's Cabin was reviewed.

On the question of why she didn't send her food back, Fantasia said she and her family were too hungry to wait any longer. The second time, service was more of a problem than the food.

And Fantasia sees bringing along her 11-year-old daughter as a plus. ``It's a good way to measure how a restaurant responds to children,'' she said.

As for her qualifications: Fantasia cites her years of working at Tandom's and other restaurants, her journalism degree from Norfolk State University and 10 years in the Pilot's Flavor section, working her way up from editorial assistant under the mentorship of former food editors Ann Hoffman and Pat Dooley.

Usually, Fantasia doesn't do her own reviews. But Pilot restaurant critic M.F. Onderdonk moved recently and a new critic won't begin for several months.

Fantasia and her editors stand behind the Tandom's review - in fact, several readers also called to commend the newspaper for ``an honest review.'' But the controversy has brought old questions to the surface. Fantasia is now thinking of organizing a reader focus group to study the issue. Meanwhile, I invite readers to put their 2 cents in.

The questions: Should a newspaper review restaurants? If so, should negative reviews be printed? Is the star rating system fair?

Call me at the number below. I'll report back in a future column. MEMO: Call the public editor at 446-2475 or e-mail

lynn(AT)pilotonline.com

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu