man. my opinion of tom sietsema just dropped several notches. for the record, i read several food blogs, almost all of which i find to be a) more entertaining b) more informative and c) more accessible than most of the stuff he writes.

Washington, D.C.: Tom,

Wanted to know your opinions on the proliferation of online "foodie" blogs. It seems that there is little sense of journalistic objectivity in some of these; whereas you are required to fact check your articles, anyone with a computer can post with no filter.

The other day one dc foodie (hint hint) blog writer even wrote that "you don't have to try something to know what it tastes like." I don't know about you, but I've had some great food that looked terrible?

Does the same go for food blogs - is there less or more than meets the eye?

Tom Sietsema: The proliferation of food blogs -- everyone really CAN be a critic these days -- only makes journalists at subscription-paid newspapers and magazines more important. I know that sounds self-serving, but who would you rather get your information from: JudyLikes2Eat or (insert name of serious publication here)?

Don't get me wrong. There are some smart online foodies out there -- but there are also a lot of whiners and crabs and people who wish they could be in these jobs and hate us because they can't be. They don't have the "cred."

I could write an essay about this, but I won't right now.

"only makes journalists at subscription-paid newspapers and magazines more important. I know that sounds self-serving, but who would you rather get your information from: JudyLikes2Eat or (insert name of serious publication here)?"

whiny whiny whiny. it's exactly this sort of sentiment that ensures i'm going to read less of the post and more of the bloggers.