emember that old adage “there’s no such thing as bad PR”? In an industry based solely on recommendations and reviews, owners the restaurant business firmly dispels this tidbit of marketing advice as they are fully aware how negative buzz can transfer into financial losses. An Austrailian resto, Coco Roco (the “David”), that fell victim to a horrid write up in 2003 is attempting to recoup its losses by mounting a legal defamation battle against the Sydney Morning Herald (the “Goliath”) and surprisingly, they’re winning!

According to Coco Roco, within a month of the nasty review being published, the restaurant had to shutter down and suffered a loss of not only the initial $3 million investment that was fronted for the full renovation, but a slew of business when reservations were canceled almost immediately after. Ancient defamation laws have allowed the suit to go thus far, which, ironically enough were already in the process of being changed when the suit was filed. Various media outlets have been obviously outraged at the attack on free speech and have since encouraged the government to update the laws.

Now here comes the legal jargon. When the suit was initially filed, a jury of four decided that the review was not defamatory, despite finding the imputations. Coco Roco then appealed the issue and took it to the NSW Court of Appeal, which then overturned the jury's initial decision and thus deemed the review was defamatory.

Not willing to be held accountable for the ramifications of free speech, John Fairfax Publications and Mr. Matthew Evans, the man responsible for the unfavourable remarks that described Coco Roco’s oyster limoncello with "flavors that jangle like a car crash; all at once it's sickly sweet, overtly alcoholic, slippery, salty and bitter", filed an appeal against the CoA's decision with the High Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal did not have the right to make that decision.

Unfortunately for Evans (and the rights of free speech), this appeal was recently rejected 6-1 by the High Court. Oddly enough, it’s now up to a jury to decide, essentially, whether the food was as bad as he said it was. Who knew jury duty could be so much fun?

While this issue gets settled across the Pacific, the battle between food bloggers and reviewers against restaurant owners and chefs continues in North America. Food Network celeb chefs have voiced their opinions about the negative effects that a blog can have on an expensive restaurant, and they’re not happy.

One of the most vocal, Mario Batali (of Iron Chef America), has cited irresponsible journalism as cause behind such negative criticism. Ironically enough, Batali seems to have adopted the “if you can't beat em, join em” mantra and blogs himself about what he calls the “anonymous authors who vent on blogs and rant their snarky vituperatives from behind the smoky curtain of the web.” He states that the veil of the internet “allows them a peculiar and nasty vocabulary that seems to be taken as truth by virtue of the fact that it has been printed somewhere”.

Batali is right, partially. Online blogs are mounting by the hundreds and anyone with access to the web can voice their opinion, positive or negative, about particular dining establishments (like on Martiniboys.com). Batali would not be complaining if all the reviews were shining and loaded with praise for his various NYC eateries, and he’d be the last one to admit service or food quality was below excellence (though he may know otherwise). But is that really fair to censor informed eaters who have a slew of dining experience as a basis of comparison because they don’t hold a journalism degree?

Instead of rejecting negative opinions from blogging diners, perhaps the alternative is to use the criticism constructively and thus improve service or food quality for future guests instead of taking the write ups as a personal attack or insult.

Of course, there is no definite conclusion to the age-old debate that rages between reviewers and restaurants. That being said, I’m interested to see just how the poor Aussie jury will determine if Coco Roco’s food really is as unpalatable as Matthew Evans said it was.
-E.J.