Blog

Since the New York Times posted a “Help Wanted” ad in November, rumors about who would succeed Pete Wells as the paper’s next restaurant critic have swirled relentlessly. Even people on the inside didn’t seem to have a read on who, exactly, was in the running, though last week word got around that an announcement was imminent.

Now, the guessing game is over: The paper has appointed not one but two critics in Ligaya Mishan, the former “Hungry City” columnist, and Tejal Rao, until now the section’s critic-at-large, who will write from California.

Among other changes, as evidenced by the photo above, the paper’s critics will no longer be anonymous, once a key requirement of the job. Mimi Sheraton, the first woman to hold the position, pioneered tactics later employed by Ruth Reichl, who famously wore wigs and costumes to avoid detection. Even recently, only a few photos of Wells circulated. Interim critic Priya Krishna, a public persona whose face is very well known to many, went to lengths to undo years of posting. (An impossible task for all of us.) Today, Rao and Mishan had their photos published in the paper. The Times has finally joined the 21st century, catching up to any number of other publications (including this one) and admitted to itself: Yeah, this is pointless.

So, why two critics? As it turns out, this isn’t because there are so many restaurants in the five boroughs. In a statement provided by the Times, the section’s editor-in-chief Emily Weinstein and Times assistant managing editor Sam Sifton announced an “ambitious new plan” to cover the nation’s restaurants. This is in keeping with the drift away from New York more broadly at the Times, which back in the day used to cover the city after which it is named. The paper, though, promises it’s not “backing away from covering New York” and that the section is “adding brief starred reviews to our coverage, written by trusted Times critic-contributors,” so presumably it’ll find a way to keep covering the local burger grills and wine bars.