accessAtlanta

City & State or ZIP Tonight, this weekend, May 5th...
City & State or ZIP
City & State or ZIP Tonight, this weekend, May 5th...
City & State or ZIP
Table Talk

Joel loses liquor license (update)

7:14 am August 21, 2009, by mford

Normally negative comments left on my blog are taken in stride — I write in a public arena, and take my knocks as they come. It comes with the territory. But the insinuation that I (or John Kessler, for that matter) would report a restaurant’s loss of its liquor license is some malicious form of hoping it will falter and eventually fail needs to addressed.

First, to address why I would report this in the first place: This blog is about restaurants and food. It’s my job to report it. It’s news. As much as I absolutely adore Cyrille’s food, and have loved Joel (I am the critic that gave the restaurant five stars, by the way) my first and primary obligation is to the reader. Someone might want to know this if they were planning to go — perhaps they would plan to have a cocktail or a glass of wine somewhere else first, before heading to Joel, if that is important to them. Wine service has, in the past, been an integral part of the experience at Joel, after all.

Second, there are sometimes parts of a story that are unprintable — held back because a source won’t go on the record, or because information can’t be substantiated from more than one source — and it gives me information and paints a story that I can’t give you, the reader, as fact. If I failed here, it is in this arena. Let’s just suffice it to say that I know more than I can print, and it colored the story I wrote yesterday.

Third, why in the world would I want Joel to fail? What investment is there in that for me? None. I have loved this restaurant for a very long time — before and after all its many changes — and it’s ridiculous to think that this would be a motive on any dining critic’s part. I have never reviewed a restaurant — with good or bad outcome — that I have wanted to see fail. But it would be wrong of me — and I wouldn’t be doing my job — to hedge my criticism simply because I want everyone to succeed.

I, too, hope that Joel will receive its new license as quickly as possible, and that these difficult times will pass. But if they don’t, it’s still my job to let readers know.

  • Print

15 comments Add your comment

blake

August 21st, 2009
8:01 am

Uh…okay, love ya, but…..in the end you are a journalist…and I am still NOT reading WHY Joel lost the liquor license….!?
Gumshoe 101….tell the story!
Your idea of telling 1/2 the story without the details (”Second there are sometimes part of the story….Let’s just suffice it to say that I know more than I can print…”) Head back to journalism school quickly, because it sounds like you are a graduate of the Fox News School of Journalis and graduated Murdoch Cum Laude!
Love ya, love your reviews…but frankly embarassed for you. Read your own article and show it to ten people in the biz who don’t know you and solicit some feedback. You completely missed the mark.

mford

August 21st, 2009
8:09 am

Blake: That’s fair enough. The license has Joel Antunes name on it and since he’s no longer associated with the restaurant, it has to be changed. That was stated in the post.

Stan

August 21st, 2009
8:44 am

MFG, Don’t worry about it. There are schumcks posting on all the AJC blogs. Heck I’m one from time to time.

Kim

August 21st, 2009
8:55 am

I have to agree with Blake, your excuse sounds pretty lame and FOXy to me as well. I think that your readers have hit a nerve and taken you down a notch. The written word is a powerful tool and I you have abused it.

Ralph

August 21st, 2009
9:24 am

You are exactly right Meredith. Wine is a part of the dining experience and I would certainly want to know if a fine restaurant didn’t have a liquor license. I believe Kim and Blake can be ignored because a fine dining experience to them is a hamburger from a burger joint.

BShepCarlin

August 21st, 2009
12:02 pm

Saw nothing wrong with your report that Joel lost liquor license. You said why. Didn’t seem to bash it in my mind. Some people just need something to whine about…

RK

August 21st, 2009
12:21 pm

The issue wasn’t with the revocation of the liquor license — that, in itself, is newsworthy and should be passed on to Atlanta diners. What caught me was the “falling dramatically from grace” portion; without any evidence to back this up, it just seemed negative and derisive. Had it been stated that you had information to support this, but couldn’t reveal it (as you have said now), then I think it would’ve been accepted as how you had intended.

P

August 21st, 2009
2:39 pm

Defensive much?

Kevrock/Smarty Jones

August 21st, 2009
2:45 pm

Buzzkills above!! Listen….She only reported that their liquor license was revoked. Good God folks get a life. This reporter has written countless great reviews about this place. Now if the city of Atlanta has any sense(right now that’s in question) they would not let a business fail for this simple reason and LOSE a lot of tax revenue. Good Job Meredith for letting me know this because I was looking into reservations in the next couple of weeks and this would have ruined the whole experience if we were not able to partake in their excellent wines that they have. Keep up the GOOD WORK!!!

Aquagirl

August 22nd, 2009
8:19 am

Sadly enough, the Blog Krap Krowd doesn’t understand why you wouldn’t print what you can’t substantiate. The idea of confirming information or maintaining professionalism is unknown in the blogosphere. Ignore those whiners, Meridith.

Tom P

August 22nd, 2009
9:31 am

Seriously, take the critisim and live with it. I generally like your reviews, but the problem isn’t reporting the facts of the story… it’s the comment that the restaurant was falling dramatically from grace. Where does that fit into fact based reporting or duty to the readers? It was just unjustified. And worse yet, you still don’t reconize it.

Cincinatti Bowtie

August 22nd, 2009
10:22 am

You should enjoy this M gold, you never usually get any posts on your blog.

Jim

August 24th, 2009
10:23 am

Meredith,
Thanks for at least trying to get people to understand the difference between “on the record”, “on background” and “off the record”.

FOR the record, she’s right, a lot of times you’ll hear something that you get from a source that you are personally 100 percent sure is true. However, they may not be able to go on the record (for a variety of reasons) or you may not be able to substantiate it from another source, which is required.

In those cases, you have to go with your gut feeling as to whether it’s good information or not. If you think it is, you’ll almost certanly let it have some effect on your story.

As an example, if I’m writing a story on a teenager with cancer, and I hear from someone involved medically that they may have only weeks to live, and get it from someone I believe, yet cannot substantiate it, I’m going to write a much different story than I would if the same person said they were well on the way to a full recovery.

These are the times when you find out if you’re a journalist or not-do you go with your gut feeling, and if so, how far? Either way, there are simply things you cannot say, because you cannot substantiate them-at least a good journalist won’t. So maybe the ones criticizing your J skills need the remedial ethics course.

SAZ

August 24th, 2009
2:58 pm

Sorry – in spite of the journalistic ethics lesson, I agree with Tom P. If you can’t substantiate, the language should be far more moderate than “falling dramatically from grace”. The last posting only adds more fuel to the fire (there are things I can’t tell you about)… Your comments minimize your own responsibilities all the while deflectively pointing to a vague mystery of which we cannot possibly be aware.

SA

August 24th, 2009
5:17 pm

If you cannot print what you know, the report should have reported the loss of the license and that they have applied for a new one. Period, the end. I reread the original post and still think it was spiteful and unprofessional.

Add your comment