When a new restaurant opened recently in Charleston, S.C., the owner, having read a tough review of another eatery from the local paper’s restaurant critic, pre-emptively banned her from setting foot in the place.
So the critic had colleagues go in, order meals and leave with leftovers, and then did a doggie-bag review. To her credit, she set aside any justifiable animosity and reported that the food was excellent — but also informed the readers of the rudeness of the owner.
“Malagon serves marvelous food to those allowed into downtown Charleston restaurant,” read the headline of the online version of the piece by Hanna Raskin, food critic for The Post and Courier of Charleston.
“Malagon is making exceptional food,” she writes, “but its owners don’t want you or me to know it.”
Raskin left it to patrons to decide whether good food is worth rewarding such a thin-skinned maneuver. According to social media reaction, some have concluded it isn’t. As one Twitter commenter put it: “Restaurants need to get over themselves. It’s food.”