Before I get into the nuts and bolts of how I consider Pete Wells a complete and utter jackass, I'd first like
to take the time to say that I respect Mr. Well's career as a journalist. Peter Wells has written a few excellent food related pieces that I have previously read and thoroughly enjoyed.
Who is Pete Wells and what the hell am I talking about? As many of you have already read around the 'nets recently, he is the writer of a recent piece about food blogging, which ran in the March 2006 issue of Food & Wine. As you'd expect, many food bloggers have taken issue with it, while those who were mentioned as quality blogs according to his standards were thrilled with the recognition.
My issues with this column on food blogging are pretty major. I can't understand how or why a writer wouldn't consider thinking about WHY people blog, wouldn't think about his comments in context of the magazine he writes for, or even speak to food bloggers about his ideas for feedback or perspective.
My main contentions with Mr. Wells can be summed up in three areas.
OH, THE IRONY
In an amazingly cocky attempt to demonstrate his food blogging wisdom,
Pete graces us with the four
or five qualities that make up a worthy
food blog. The new King of Food Blogging proclaims from his throne:
"When a blogger settles on a purpose, he needs to
make sure no one else already has it covered."
The worst aspect of this article for me is that Pete is writing it
in Food & Wine, in which he is a contributing editor. He was also
the senior editor in 2001, right around the time when I stopped
reading it regularly. Three quarters of F & W's features and recipes are, in
my opinion, recycled content I have read in many other places, either in the past, in competitive publications like Bon Appetite and Gourmet, seen someone make on Food TV, or even read on a food blog. In
fact, I can't tell you what differentiates F & W from any of their competitor's magazines.
Have a look at the very issue in which Mr
Well writes.
HMMM, let's see here. Recipes for "roasted chicken", "chicken breasts with rosemary and thyme" and "pasta shells with peas and ham"? Wow, that is some pretty original content. Pretty sure I haven't seen recipes for those dishes in magazines like Gourmet, Bon Appetite or I Learned How to Cook Yesterday and Just Published A Magazine. Are
you kidding me? Pete. Listen up. This is JV material. People
running around at the magazine in which you contribute are publishing content that is LESS interesting than what a blogger ate for lunch yesterday.
I could keep going. Like a section in the magazine called "where to eat next in NYC". Next. Ok, got it. This should be a hot list, right? Maybe insider tips on what is coming soon? Nope. As if on cue and contradicting the rules that Pete Wells outlines for bloggers ("always be timely and current, young food blogging Jedi"), F&W proclaims GUSTO (reviewed and on the hot list for 8 months now) and PERRY STREET (reviewed and on the hot list for 10 months, counting pre-opening hype) as tips for readers on where to eat next. Hello? Thanks for the latest tips. Here's a deal... I won't read Eater for the next six months and maybe the next round of tips will be news to me.
Why is original content a qualification for bloggers but not the magazine Pete writes for or used to edit full time? Maybe you should think about the context in which you publish your critical writing, Pete. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
DINTY MOORE-ON
From the food blogging gospel of Pete Wells, publisher of zero food posts on the web:
"...what I want from a critic is advice on when to
take a ball-peen hammer to my piggy bank and when to stay home and open a can
of Dinty Moore."
Yeah, sure Pete. I think I'll take food blogging advice from you...um....never. Crack a can o' Dinty, spread it on a Ritz Cracker, fire up the microwave and turn up the volume on the Tivo'd Paula Deen episode you missed last week, bro. Oh, wait. Under your brilliant rules of food blogging, I guess a post on Dinty Moron Ritz Crackers would be original and therefore satisfy your genius rules of blogging, oh master?
Urr...I Forgot to Research The Subject of My Article
Pro-blogger Pete Wells proclaims, with cans of Dinty Moore and Spam held high in the air to the subjects below him:
"there ought to be consequences—something should be
at stake. The political bloggers have this part down; most of them write as if
the fate of the republic hinged on what Arlen Specter said on Meet the Press.
The stakes are not always as obvious in gastronomy, but they do exist. Will Lin
ever meet a culinary oddity that makes him skittish? (Yes: duck fetus.)"
Pete, here's where you go seriously wrong. Any sort of deep research on your part shows that the food blogging community is indeed a community. Food bloggers of all popularity join together to post recipes and pictures of their passion for IMBB, wine labels and thoughts on WWBW, and their favorite desserts for Sugar High Fridays. These are the exact folks who Pete is calling out in his article. These folks are giving their thoughts on their passion in an effort to share them with people with similar interests.
From reading their blogs, it seems like they do have an interest in entertaining readers, but clearly they do this for another purpose. Some of them are more recognized than others, some will get books deals, fame or other recognition, but in reality the sense of community is what all of these blogs share and seem to thrive of off. Pete just doesn't get that. For some reason, he thinks that the goal of food bloggers should be to become forums for pop culture entertainment or quasi food journalists that simply relay timely food news and information.
Pete, go get a passion buddy. Once you do, you'll realize how ridiculous your article reads to me.
It's pretty hard to go wrong with a 2001 wine from Spain. 
