i’ve been thinking hard about it but can’t quite figure out why both la spiga and the thomas street bistro have allowed their ads to be published in the stranger again this week. both restaurants had the self-respect to speak out about the below-the-belt reviews they’ve recently been dealt by the paper (la spiga in last week’s letter to the editor, the thomas street bistro online), so why would they not follow through by removing their ads?
i understand the value of advertisements, particularly in a publication as widely read (we love to hate it, but we still read it – maybe because it’s free?) as the stranger. i just can’t help but wish we were all less willing to put up with unnecessarily destructive reviews.
on a different note, what recently validated to me my hate of these reviews was reading jonathan kauffman’s thursday review of ama ama. deep down, it was a negative review. yet i was able to read the whole thing without a cringe, feel like the reporting was objective, and decide from his description (rather than demolition) that it probably wasn’t a place i’d enjoy. i’d be fascinated to see how kauffman would write about la spiga.