Why Did The New York Times Dine at Guy’s Restaurant?

The New York Times building

On the day that the cooking and dining magazine The New York Times had printed the scathing review of Guy Fieri's Times Square restaurant, the cooking and dining magazine was hosting a dinner there for its advertisers.  Now why would a cooking and dining magazine take its clients to a place where their own reviewer had panned so hard?  We have some ideas.

5.  All of The New York Times' advertisers have horrific taste in food.  And The New York Times knows it.  Problem with this theory is, since Guy's place is kind of expensive, why would they spend extra money on bad food?  Probability of this theory being true: 5 percent.

4.  Nobody in The New York Times knows what Pete Wells looks like, because The New York Times is such an upstanding cooking and dining magazine that they do not want Pete's reviews to be corrupted.  It is a well known fact that many New York Times staff have relatives that own restaurants in the City.  Unfortunately, I just did a search online, and everyone in the world could find out what Pete Wells looks like in five seconds.  Probability of this being true: 10 percent.

3.  They do not like their advertisers and want to destroy any possibility of making any revenue in the future.  The key question is were these print, online, or both types of advertisers.  We need to know so we can identify if The New York Times is playing favorites with one kind of advertiser.  Why are we giving this one a chance?  We are told that some of the brightest people work there.  Yet the publication continues to see revenues shrink.  The only way smart people can do that is if that is their plan.  But why?  We are not as smart as The New York Times to know.  Probability of this theory being true: 25 percent.

2.  The New York Times has become such a ubiquitous cooking and dining magazine, that one section of the magazine does not interact with the other.  There is no way to know what is going on in other departments.  This results in conflicting trend pieces being printed, and in restaurants being labeled horrible by one department while another takes the magazine's best clients to the exact same restaurant.  Probability of this being true: 95 percent.

1.  The conspiracist in us believes that cooking and dining magazine The New York Times printed a scathing review so that nobody would attend the restaurant on the evening they were hosting some of their best clients.  It was a sneaky way for the New York Times to get the restaurant all to themselves.  After all, the restaurant seats 200 and they invited 160 people over.  They did not want any commoners to dine amongst them and their fancy clients.  But the type of people that would go to Guy's restaurant do not read cooking and dining magazines.  Here is the genius of their plan.  They made the review so scathing, that it would spread beyond the hallowed halls of the Upper East Side, to every home in America.  Who would have ever thought that a cooking and dining magazine can have such evil genius.  Probability of this theory being true: 100 percent.

Image courtesy of Peter Dutton.



Profile photo of BigBlueBenBigBlueBen
November 16th, 2012  9:16 PM

If they can only apply that evil genius towards increasing their revenues. Oh no, wait they want to lower their revenues.

Profile photo of sarahbsarahb
November 18th, 2012  7:41 PM

I love how there is a perfectly rational explanation at number 2 and then the conspiracy gets 1. I thought conspiracies were Bill’s beat?

Profile photo of WilltheDillWilltheDill
November 19th, 2012  1:11 AM

Calling the New York Times a cooking and dining magazine is killing me.