baronbonk.com Notstickman and Stickman: who is right and why!

To be a critic
(now the dust has settled in the Stickman and Notstickman joust)

The Notstickman stupidity has thrown up more than just the petty jealousy of one Keith Summers. It has also bought to the forefront the simple practice of being a critic.
Do such people have any rights, or are they the lowest of the low? Are they wannabes who, for whatever reason, are unable to “be” something, so feel it necessary to criticise those who “are”? And exactly what right does Stickman, Notstickman, Nightmarch or Baronbonk have to pass judgement on a bar?
The simple answer is that they have no more (or less) right than any bar user, most of whom, when together with friends, feel it necessary to slate or praise the place they were in the night before, and often in voices coloured by alcohol and personal prejudice.
Many years ago when I was in the restaurant trade, the view was that out of every 10 customers who went home happy, just one would pass on a favourable report to a friend. In contrast, every customer who went home unhappy made his or her feelings known to at least 10.
The difference between the average bar-user critic and “published” critics, such as those I mentioned above, is that the views of the latter make their way into the public domain – a practice made absurdly easy since the invention of the Internet.
I have often referred to Stickman's work as a blog, and certainly for a while it was just that. Of course, that was before blogging became all the rage. But then Stickman started using other people's input and despite there being no visual changes to his site, he had, in effect, created a simple online newspaper/magazine.
At Baronbonk, and in the Asiabugle, we have done much the same, with the main difference being that we have always admitted to having more than one writer, and even more than one “Baron”. While we don't identify anybody by their real name, over the years many people have got to know me, some of the other Barons and Nightmarch.
So why the need for anonymity, one might ask?
Well that's easy. Anyone who has been around Thailand for a number of years will admit that it's simply more sensible to be a little clandestine about such things.
But that's not the only reason.
When I worked as a restaurant critic I liked my visits to be completely anonymous. The reason for that is obvious: if I was going to write about a place constructively, the last thing I wanted was special treatment.
And I can honestly say that at that time, and in that place, a glowing review from me had the power to fill a restaurant; a bad one could do just the opposite.
Another reason is that if you are a publisher, a pen name for your critic or diarist can live for ever, long after the original writer has moved on. The name itself becomes the brand.
Also, while there is little point in writing a critical column that's toothless, in Thailand telling the “truth” is fraught with danger. The laws of defamation are such that publishing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding a bar or restaurant, for example, could end you up in the Bangkok Hilton (and I don't mean the fancy hotel).
The problem is that any criticism you make is considered nothing more than opinion, because you can't “prove” that the staff were surly, the drinks were poured short, or that your bill was padded. All the bar owner has to do is to produce 10 “witnesses” who say the opposite and all of a sudden you're facing a judge and a defamation charge.
While UK restaurant and bar owners have the right to sue critics and their publications, they must take out a civil case, which is invariably a lengthy and expensive procedure, and before anyone except the lawyers makes any money, real damage must be proved.
In Thailand , on the other hand, defamation is a criminal matter, which means the police can simply arrest the writer and/or publisher as a first course of action. The “accused” then has the problem of trying to get bail, and later faces the daunting task of persuading a court that not only was the information contained in the article correct, but that its publication was in the public interest.
Which is exactly why all of Bangkok 's glossy mags and even newspapers carry nothing but “fluff” restaurant reviews, which are barely worth the paper on which they are written.
I remember Trink once telling me about a scathing review he wrote while working as a restaurant reviewer for The Bangkok World (before it was taken over by the Post). It was only deft manoeuvring and soothing words from the World's lawyers and publisher that saved Trink from becoming embroiled in the scenario outlined above. Not surprisingly, he never again wrote a restaurant review.
Back on the Summers issue, it seems his reason for stalking Stickman is that he feels there is a conflict of interest between the editorial and advertising on Stick's site – an issue as old as publishing itself.
Almost every news publication relies on advertising to make money. (Despite what people might think, the cover price contributes little to the bottom line.) And while most “quality” publications have a strict policy of keeping advertising and editorial apart, it would be naïve of any editor or managing director to bite the hand that feeds them.
For small operations like Baronbonk and Stickman, the problem is that the editorial writers are often the same people who are trying to sell advertising, which doesn't make life easy. And if Summers wants a financial return for his efforts he will need to attract advertisers.
Maybe one of the bar owners who allegedly put him up to the attack on Stickman would like to support his site with an advertisement. Should that happen it would be unlikely Notstickman would ever criticise that particular bar. I might be wrong, but it's fact of life.
The saddest part about being a critic is that most people simply don't want to hear “good” news. When did anyone ever report on the million airplanes that took off and landed safely last week? One crashes and it makes headlines the world over.
Similarly, telling everyone that all the bars you went to last night were splendid is just a waste of time … bad news sells, as do scandal and impropriety.
While there are no formal qualifications required to become a critic, there are certainly some things that disqualify a person from being a credible one. For example, if you work in the trade on which you are commenting, it's unlikely you will ever be taken seriously because of the obvious conflict of interest. My career as a restaurant critic, for instance, ended when I was asked to manage a pub restaurant. My editor, quite rightly, said I wouldn't be allowed to carry on.
I have been a critic as well as a restaurateur chef and bar owner for many years and consider myself highly qualified. However, most people have a view on what is good and what is bad, so if they can maintain a consistent approach and standards, they should be able to make constructive comments. A worthy critic must be able to express himself fairly and honestly, without falling into the trap of airing nothing more than personal gripes.
The big problem in this era of the Internet and blog sites is that anyone and everyone can now jump on the critics' bandwagon. Unfortunately, not all of them are doing it for the right reason, so more and more Notstickman-style attacks are inevitable, and that can only devalue the good work being done by those trying to provide honest and fair information.