I don’t pay a lot of attention to reviews of things. Maybe a little more for things where it’s a mass market product, I’m only going to buy one and I know nothing about the product. Like when I was buying a dishwasher. I know nothing about them. I went for a triple-A model that I could afford with some aftercare because there’s no way I’m sticking a screwdriver into a device that uses a lot of water in it’s internals along with electricity. That just seems stupid and something best left to professionals.
I pay less attention to movie and food reviews because so much of it depends on the instance of delivery. Someone working their way through a mega-bag of super-crunchy nacho chips in the seat behind me won’t irritate me unduly but in comparison a couple of kids who insist on sending texts and flashing their little mobile screens at me will often send me into a quiet seething rage. Similarly with food. If it’s bad smelling I won’t eat it. But a review from three weeks ago will not give me a scare about somewhere.
But here in the news is a story about a restaurant review that went poorly and the owner of the restaurant has decided to strike back in a novel way.
Did he decide to invite every food critic in the city and make an honest attempt to impress them?
No.
He decided that the REVIEW was defamatory. And sued for damages. And won.
Here’s the story in all it’s stupidity.
What does this mean for the future? Will book reviews err on the side of being nice for fear that an author will sue? We’ve known that reviews in computer magazines were usually nicer than they should be where advertisers are concerned? Is this restaurant an advertiser in the Irish News? Is that what this is about? They pay XXX pounds to the Irish News for advertising telling everyone how good they are and then the Irish News turns around and publishes a less than sparkling review?
I’m disappointed in the legal system for this one getting through. But I guess it means reviews are utterly worthless.