Picked up my beloved local paper this morning, sipped my coffee, got to page 7A. And there it was, a big, fat indictment of restaurant critics. To be precise, in a story lambasting "recession chic," New York writer Kelly Marages says:

"Take restaurant reviews. The favorite topic these days? Recession specials -- where to get a good meal for less. Often, these are gourmet meals whose prices have simply begin to deflate to levels approaching normal. Thanks for the advice. But how about this: If you can't afford to eat out, don't do it. Or when you just have to, for whatever psychological or physical reason, go someplace you can afford."

Well, in the age-old words of Steve Martin, well excuuuuuuuuse ME! Yes, lots of recent stories have been about affordable restaurants and good deals, but I still cover the expensive and splurge restos as well. It's what I've always done: Review a balance of price points and cuisines, spread across the whole readership area. Because A) People are still eating out (for "psychological or physical reasons" like hunger + lack of time + lack of skill/enjoyment of cooking), occasionally at splurgy/celebrationy places and B) People need to know where to go, and where to avoid, both when they need a cheapie or when they're putting on the dog.

I'm not sure if Marages is suggesting restaurant critics would better serve their readership if they turned their attentions exclusively to delis, diners, fast food and quick-stops. Like maybe we should just pick a cutoff: I will review no entree above $10. Yeesh, Marages, lighten up. And since when is the word "gourmet" a perjorative? And what does it even mean? To me, it's one of the most bankrupt words I can think of.