blog-bashing and inane journalists

the increasing popularity of blogging has certainly caused much commotion, no less within the msm (mainstream media); in my opinion, blogs have done much to dent the power of the msm, most notably within the technologically-savvy circles, where subject authorities who blog routinely debunk the trash that clueless msm journalists put out to unsuspecting readers.

within the msm itself, there are those who understand the power of blogging, those who realise (but do not understand) it, and those who are clueless of it all. unfortunately for singaporeans, most singapore journalists belong to, either voluntarily or because of having to tow the party line, the second or the third group. a journalist with the straits times recently (okay, not-too-recently - i've really been behind blogging; expect a ton of backdated posts soon - i hope) compared blogs to porn sites. i hope he hasn't been listening to any sony cds recently =p

anyway, it is painfully apparent to anyone with half a brain that collectively, singapore journalists put out a lot of balderdash. i suppose one can't lay all the blame on them, seeing that their forte is journalism, rather than the subject that they are supposed to "journalise" on. however, you'd really want to grab a heavy bat and club the journalist repeatedly on the head after reading some of the mind-numbingly stupid articles.

many food reviews in the singapore msm fall into the above category, most notably in the less reputable tabloids such as the new paper. two recent articles on aiwo and yum-cha seem to confirm this hypothesis.

in the aiwo article, the journalist raved about the healthfulness of the dishes, without actually mentioning in what ways are they healthful and yet (presumably) tasty , save for a blanket statement that the chef does not use saturated fat et cetera. not particularly useful for a food review, since wheat-grass juice is also healthful, and yet disgusting at the same time.

also, people do not "go the conveyor belt way because it is inexpensive and tasty". inexpensive - arguable; tasty - not likely; gimmicky - definitely if you are not serving sushi.

and may i ask what are "indian herbs and chinese sauces"? india and china are both very large countries, with china itself having four main schools of cooking, and india at least two regional styles (not to mention the various branches within each school or style); such over-generalisations should certainly be done away with if the article aims to achieve any authority on the subject (or maybe since it's the new paper...)

anyway, if i am not wrong, most chinese sauces are laden with oil and fat - is the article suggesting that the chinese sauces used are not "authentic" (as much as i hate using that word to describe food, and on a larger scale culture)? if so, shouldn't the taste difference be noted in the article?

but what is so dastardly about this article is the fact that for a food review, there was no mention of any specific dishes, save for a szechuan chicken which was described as "lovely". lovely, indeed. i'd rush to make reservations for a restaurant based on a food review which didn't review the food =p

but perhaps it's not a bad thing that no food was reviewed in the aforementioned article, for it may become an even bigger mess than it currently is if it did - just check out the yum-cha article; a rather big joke of a food article, where the journalist failed on many counts to adequately describe the food in a way that would entice people.

firstly, when eating dim sum, "if you get frustrated with crystal dumpling skin disintegrating easily", please do not hope for thicker skin, which the phrase "firmly textured" is an euphemism for. learn how to use chopsticks properly. or use a spoon together with chopsticks - you'd look less elegant, but at least you won't end up with a mouthful of flour-y skin.

ditto with "firmly-textured beancurd" - and in some ways this is even worse - i certainly would not want to eat beancurd that "does not break at the clip of your chopsticks", since that's pretty much how beancurd's supposed to behave.

also, what's with the phrase "if you do not like cabbage, fret not as the taste of the fish paste is stronger"? if one does not like cabbage, one would not order the cabbage seafood roll; and for someone who likes cabbage and thus ordered it, the lack of the cabbage taste would certainly make for cause for complaint. impressive - all logic just went out of the window with that brilliant line.

it's also not a good idea to describe the taste of fish paste as "stronger", a word that when associated with fish makes one think of a fish-market.

i'm also pretty sure the journalist meant "texture" instead of "taste" in the case of the red bean paste; either that or the sentence was poorly constructed, since taste cannot possibly "melt in your mouth".

all these observations from a wannabe food-connoisseur with not-so-good-engrish; what would aa gill think?