Sunday, 14 July 2013 9:49 AM - PDF document

From: Lang, Kylie Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013 9:49 AM To: Menios Constantinou Cc: Dore, Christopher Subject: RE: Media Watch questions Menios, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. Regards, Kylie Kylie Lang Editor, Qweekend, The Courier - Mail / Columnist, The Sunday Mail Cnr Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills Q 4006 From: Menios Constantinou Sent: Friday, 12 July 2013 4:05 PM To: Lang, Kylie Subject: Media Watch questions Dear Kylie, As mentioned on the phone, Media Watch is interested in Lizzie Loel’s review of Bare Bones Society, published in the July 6 edition of the Courier Mail’s Qweekend magazine. We are aware that Lizzie Loel and the owner of Bare Bones Society, Kym Machin, w ere briefly employed together in 2012 at Spring, where they had a major disagreement. Media Watch understands this was well - known in Brisbane’s food industry, and it was put on the public record when John Lethlean wrote about it in The Australian: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/food - wine/matt - moran - gets - the - big - tick - from - symbol - of - tourism - quality/story - f ncv75k9 - 1226408253910 . Media Watch believes this raises questions surrounding the ethics of critics reviewing people they have a history with. News Corp Australia’s editorial code of conduct states that, ‘ Contributors must comply with provisions rela ting to conflicts and must declare any real or potential conflict of interest arising from material submitted for publication and supervisors must do their utmost to ensure no conflict exists. Any association which may have a bearing, or appear to have a b earing, on a contributor’s view, must be identified with the published material. Failure to notify the editor of any real or potential conflict of interest may result in dismissal.’ We have some questions to which we’d greatly appreciate your responses . 1. Was the idea to review Bare Bones Society in Qweekend initiated by you, or the author of the review? Our process is as follows: contributors of regular columns, including Lizzie Loel, submit six weeks’ worth of ideas to assist with forward planning. We approve or veto those suggestions. Our priority, being in the news business, is to review new establishments. Bare Bones Society was new and therefore deserving of review. Fairfax also reviewed it in the same week. 2. Were you aware that Lizzie Loel and Kym Machin had been colleagues at Spring in 2012 and that their working relationship had ended sourly? Did Lizzie Loel inform you of the situation? Yes, I was aware they had a brief overlap at Spring. If their relationship ended sourly it is news to Lizzie Loel. She certainly feels no animosity or ill feeling towards him. Clearly, Machin has an issue with Loel and in making public accusations about her professionalism one could lay the very same charge on him that he is making against her - based on his ani mosity towards her. I have read John Lethlean’s gossip column and it only states one opinion – that of Kym Machin. This gossip column, I suggest, is the source of what you assert is the “major fallout” that is” well - known in Brisbane’s food industry”. 3. Do you agree that a potential conflict of interest could arise from that situation? If so, why was Lizzie Loel assigned to review Bare Bones Society? If not, can you please explain why you believe there was no conflict? Lizzie Loel has been a professional c aterer and involved in the food industry for more than 30 years. Naturally, she knows many people. She reviewed for The Courier - Mail for 12 years, 6 ½ of these years for me while I was Food and Wine editor of The Courier - Mail. That’s more than 600 reviews, 350 of which I have personally edited and published. On occasion, scores of 4 and 5 have were awarded. Lizzie left The Courier - Mail on excellent terms in 2011 to work in a senior management role for a major restaurant. In 2012 she won the Dimmi Award for Professional Excellence in the Brisbane Times Good Food Guide Awards. She has also co - authored several restaurant guides. Raising a conflict of interest claim in food reviewing is a stretch given most experienced reviewers will have a history with chefs an d restaurateurs, based on previously published reviews and professional relationships. The food industry is full of connections, and a casual reading of the social media accounts of the nation’s chefs and reviewers shows they often share colourful exchange s. Moreover, many chefs who receive an average review claim to have been wronged. 4. Are you satisfied that the review of Bare Bones Society was fair ? Yes. And 12/20 is a reasonable score. Incidentally, Fairfax’s goodf ood.com.au reviewed Bare Bones Society on July 2 and gave it 3.5/ 5 = 14/20 so a similar result and not the high scores Kym Machin had received when at the upmarket Urbane in the CBD. I have been notified that you’re on leave until Monday. Taking that int o account, we’d appreciate a response by 10am on Monday. If you have any questions, I’ll be contactable over the weekend on the mobile number below. Regards, Menios Constantinou Researcher, Media Watch