Technically I'm not sure this violates their own self-imposed rules; if you read their policies, you'll find that "Gothamist writers may review product samples or enter events on press passes as long as doing so does not bias their coverage." [How would one know?--ed.] Food journalism is a bit unusual since the typical ethical requirements are so much more stringent than in other genres, something I've never entirely understood, save for the fact that the reviewer's experience can be tailored in a way that is impossible with pretty much any other critical subject. I'd be interested to hear takes on this.

Having said that, it's pretty disingenuous to call it a "feature," what with all the evaluative adjectives--"really terrific," "as beautiful as it is delicious," "least favorite courses," etc. It seems much more like a review to me, since it's more concerned with evaluating than explaining.

What Chicagoist reminds me of, in all its brevity, broad humor, vituperation, blatant homerism, and willingness to be in thrall to local luminaries, is not so much other blogs than small-town papers, with all the qualities (good and bad) that implies. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

What I didn't get when I first read the Alinea "feature" on Chicagoist was: Why on earth would Alinea need more PR, especially from a site like Chicagoist? I read it on a daily basis and I enjoy it, but I just think it was an odd coupling. Maybe Achatz wanted more twentysomething - thirtysomething coverage.

Doesn't their policy also state: "Gothamist bloggers cannot accept gifts, free meals, tickets, or other consideration in return for running posts."

If they didn't pay for the meal at Alinea, they're very clearly breaking their policies. (Note: Chicagoist is part of the "Gothamist" network and plays by their rules, or so they say).

And I agree with whetstone. It is entirely disingenuous to say that "this is not a review" and then go on to review practically every dish.

"Why on earth would Alinea need more PR, especially from a site like Chicagoist?"

My thought as well, though I guess it's pretty common for restaurants to try and promote a new menu, which Alinea has. Still, you'd never know that from the piece, which doesn't say anything about Achatz's recent decision to "tone it down"--which might have put the food-talk in context. Maybe.

Regardless, I think a 24-course dinner WITH WINE PAIRINGS counts as a "free meal" rather than a "product sample," no matter how teeny the courses.

Ah, Martha, you're just jealous.

Just kidding.

I'M jealous.

For the record, the "tour" at Alinea costs $195. Wine is probably another C-note at least.

I'm not jealous! Though, yeah, I've been to Alinea once (the Reader paid) and would kill to go back. It was one of the best meals of my life.

Maybe I'm a mite jealous too; I'd like to think that if I was on the frontiers of journalistic--or at least blogic--integrity, and that Grant Achatz had gone to the trouble of making me a meal as a member of the working press, I'd, er, maybe have a bit more to say.

In other Alina journalism news, I recommend checking out the piece in Chicago by a cooking-school-grad editor who did a brief stint in the kitchen there. That was a neat left-field take.

Okay, as I see it from what you have written here:

It's okay for a review or poster (or whatever you want to call them) to write about something that they received for free as long as:

1) They did not solicit the free item, show, meal with the express purpose of writing a review or feature in exchange.

AND

2) The fact that they got in or received the item(s) in question for free does not bias their subsequent post.

So, while on the surface it may sound like taht anyone writing about somthing they didn't pay for is breaking their own rules, I think that you have to take a closer look. These two policies are not contradictory, they just sound that way. It's the same debate as is going on (again) about payola, when does a sales call turn from a diner into a crime?

I do need to ask though, would we even be having this conversation if, as was pointed out, Scott hadn't kicked up a "Fuss" about WGN? Which I found to be a totally ill advised attempt at muckraking, and really only werved to generate comments and features like this one here. In the end, this is actually only an extension of a conversation that Scott himself started. So, if both the pot and the kettle are the same color, why would the pot want to start a debate?

And finally, in the interest of full disclosure; I do not work or contribute to Chicagoist, but I do personally know people who do, and for the most part these UNPAID contributors foot the bill for almost everything they write about. Yes, they may get press passes or invitations to different events or showcases; however, by and large they pay their own way with no reimbursement of any kind. Although please don't take the fact that I know some people at Chicagoist to mean that I am an automatic defender of all things Chicagoist, as I most definitely let them know when I think they've stepped in it.

The rules the above comment refers to appear to be Chicagoist's, as reported by Whetstone.

Generally any publication (of any kind) that wants to be taken seriously does not allow restaurant reviewers to accept free meals. Many restaurant reviewers are not even allowed to make reservations under their own name. For whatever reason, the generally accepted standard is different from the one for music, movies etc.

I think there are a couple of intersecting issues at play here--

1) critics routinely accept free tickets/cds/books/movie passes/whatever in exchange for the reasonable hope of a review. But a movie is a fixed experience, where a restaurant meal isn't. As Whetstone said, it can be tailored to the individual. So restaurant reviewers (usually) dine anonymously. (I'd link to my earlier post about the WGN thing here, which covered similar ground, but I can't; it's in our archives on Dec 8.)

2) Chicagoist's policies prohibit "free meals". Period. And they explicitly prohibit quid pro quo arrangements, which is what this would appear to be: I'll give you a free dinner and you write a "feature" on me.

3) Chicagoist does't call the piece a "review" but it clearly is--just count the "delicious"es.

4) It's great that Chicagoist's writers are so into what they're doing that they pay for things themselves, but is that reason enough to get breathlessly excited about a free fancy dinner? This speaks more to Whetstone's point about the site's relentless boosterism and "willingness to be in thrall to local luminaries"--which is a sometimes endearing/sometimes annoying content issue more than an ethical one.