Adjudication No. 1085 (June 2000; re-issued August 2000)

The Press Council has upheld in part a complaint relating to a review of the Sassi Bistro-Bar, a restaurant in Port Melbourne, published in The Sunday Age on 5 March 2000.

Newspapers have traditionally included reviews of restaurants. Such reviews can have great significance for the business of a restaurant. Put simply, the nature of the review has the potential to make or break the business. The Council is not in a position to second guess the content of a review. If the opinions in a review relating to the performance and quality of a restaurant are genuinely held and properly presented, the Council will not uphold the concerns of a restaurateur that the review is damaging to business. However, the significance of a review makes it of prime importance that restaurant reviews be fair.

In this case, the reviewer rated Sassi at two stars (good) out of a possible four stars. However, there were aspects of the review that in the Council's judgment gave a false impression of the quality of the restaurant. At two points the reviewer referred unfavourably to the quantity of the serves. That the risotto entree was "a tad meanly presented" and, of the meal overall, that "only one of us could have dined satisfactorily on what was brought to the table". The reviewer failed to disclose that the two parties dining had opted to share the entree.

The reviewer was also critical of a sauce as being too salty. However, the sauce was meant to be salty and the complainant says that the reviewer was advised at the time of ordering of its nature. (The reviewer also failed to disclose that he was drinking Diet Coke with his meal which would have influenced the taste of the sauce. Indeed the review gives the impression that he was drinking wine.)

The review in other respects commented favourably on the restaurant and the Council does not make any finding on the reviewer's overall assessment of Sassi. What the Council is saying is that a restaurant reviewer must be fair about all aspects of the matters that are being criticised. In this case the Council considers that the reviewer did not disclose to readers of the review all matters relevant to the circumstances that led to the adverse comments. To this extent the complaint is upheld.

return to
Adjudication index

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.