On Feb. 28, in the Flavor section, The Courant printed a review about a new Torrington restaurant, Prime Steak and Seafood.
At the urging of the restaurant owner and its manager, who said the opinion piece contained inaccuracies and overstatement, the review was scrutinized by the editors and discussed with the reviewer.
The findings:
The reviewer, Elissa Altman, referred to her “dining companions” twice in the review, although she was accompanied by only one other person, tasted only a few dishes and based her review on that experience.
The review misstated some prices and said the restaurant had no website. The site is www.primesteakandseafood.com. Appetizers — called the Nine’s on the menu — are $9; steaks are $19 to $34; other entrees are $16 to $24; desserts are $6.
The Courant regrets these errors.
Further, the review contained statements that were intended as hyperbole — such as the reviewer’s writing that she had to climb over people to get to her table — that a reader might have misunderstood as literal descriptions.
Finally, some facts in the review remain in dispute.
The review began with an exchange between the reviewer and someone at the restaurant regarding reservations. The manager disputes the tone and content of the published account. The reviewer, based on her observation of a diner not in her party, also commented on a rib-eye steak she did not taste. The restaurant maintains that no nearby diner ordered the rib-eye.
The reviewer stands by both descriptions and her portrayal of her overall dining experience.
Going forward, the reviewer, a free-lancer, and The Courant agree that the reviewer will no longer write for the newspaper.
The newspaper will strive to honor its commitment to informative and accurate restaurant reviews that help diners make the best choices based on a broad sampling of the food. Link
-
Editor
Accuracy Sites
Broadcast Corrections
Magazine Corrections
Newspaper Corrections
- Akron Beacon Journal
- Albany Times Union
- Arizona Daily Star
- Arizona Republic
- Asbury Park Press
- Associated Press
- Atlanta Journal-Constitution
- Austin American-Statesman
- Austin Chronicle
- Baltimore Sun
- Bangor Daily News
- Boston Globe
- Buffalo News
- Cape Cod Times
- Charleston Gazette
- Chicago Tribune
- Christian Science Monitor
- Cleveland Plain Dealer
- Columbus Dispatch
- Contra Costa Times
- Dallas Morning News
- Daytona Beach News-Journal
- East Valley Tribune
- Fort Worth Star-Telegram
- Fresno Bee
- Globe And Mail
- Greensboro News & Record
- Hartford Courant
- Honolulu Advertiser
- Houston Chronicle
- International Herald Tribune
- Kent State Stater
- Los Angeles Times
- Mail & Guardian (South Africa)
- Miami Herald
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
- Minneapolis Star Tribune
- Minnesota Daily
- Mirror (UK)
- Monterey County Herald
- National Post
- New Orleans Times-Picayune
- New York Times
- Newsday
- Northwest Herald
- Orange County Register
- Orlando Sentinel
- Philadelphia Inquirer
- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- Portland Press Herald
- Raleigh News & Observer
- Reuters
- Rocky Mountain News
- Sacramento Bee
- Salt Lake Tribune
- San Antonio Express-News
- San Francisco Chronicle
- Sarasota Herald-Tribune
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer
- Seattle Times
- South Florida Sun-Sentinel
- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
- St. Petersburg Times
- Tampa Tribune
- The Gazette (Montreal)
- The Guardian
- The Independent (UK)
- The Oregonian
- Toronto Star
- U of Virginia Cavalier Daily
- Victoria Advocate (Texas)
- Virginian-Pilot
- Wall Street Journal
- Washington Post
- Washington Times
- Wichita Eagle
- Winston-Salem Journal
Online Corrections
-









One Comment
Did the “free-lancer” really agree not to write for the paper anymore? Or was the writer just sacked by the paper? Why did the paper agree not to run any more articles? Were the number of mistakes too much, or did the paper feel there was a serious enough breach of journalistic ethics to warrant a blacklisting?
This is also a good reason why having freelancers write reviews (especially on such touchy subjects as restaurants) isn’t such a great idea.
Other than that, it’s a good correction.