Defamation was the excuse Gavin King gave for not being able to name the restaurant that served him up his 'yaks vomit' lamb shank. So concerned was he that the establishment not be identified that he couldn't even reveal the other dishes they ate that night.
So it was interesting to see his News Ltd comrades at The Australian absolutely hammer an expensive Perth restaurant, Sentinel. A $46 steak was "just about the worst steak I’ve ever been served in a restaurant. With erratic, curiously curved “grill” marks" and "the meat was powdery, juiceless, inadequately seasoned and with very little character or flavour .... reminded me so much of a 1980s pub counter meal." A pie was "an example of why pastry needs to be properly cooked to transform it from a shortened combination of flour and water into something that you’d actually want to eat."
Kitchenslut's posted response in the compost comments at the time was: Gavin, you have referred to defamation the last prominent case I am aware of was Coco Roco in Sydney which sued the SMH after their critic had called half the food "unpalatable" and described "a dismal pyramid of sorbet". This case was thrown out. I'm not sure how that compares with "yak's vomit" but maybe a better journalist would have been able to make appropriate criticisms without hiding behind defamation. This would have been more credible and also been more constructively useful for diners and the community. At least the SMH is capable of independent and critical restaurant reviews unlike the Cairns Post. Posted by: KS of Cairns 08:23pm Tuesday 5th October
Standards on defamation would seem to be somewhat inconsistent and subjective within the News Ltd archipelago? Standards of journalism are similarly inconsistent.
Cyclone misogyny: deja vu journalism - Where have I seen this before? Research showing female-named storms seen as less threatening 'worth considering' By Xavier La Canna Yes, it's the same st...
3 days ago