Famous chefs certainly have existed for a long time, but the thing where any remotely high-end restaurant advertises who the chef is does feel relatively new.

It's an opinion piece. The sentence you cite is quoting a book about American restaurant culture. Most of the chefs that predate this in your list are not American.

If you couldn't find the citations of Kennedy, Sqirl/Nguyen, Voodo Donut and Fat Rice in addition to the "the only evidence for it that you could find" then you were not reading carefully.

I don't think this is a great piece, but it seems relatively well sourced for a food section opinion piece.

Opinion pieces are fine, but if they purport to say something about the world what they should be based on evidence. If I reviewed a Disney movie and said it was good, that would be my opinion, if I said it was one of the last animated films that would be produced, that would be a fact about the world and I should probably explain what I mean by that and how I know it. To more directly tie that analogy to my criticism of this article, I feel the author says that this is the twilight of the celebrity chef but doesn't really back that up with evidence.

I did see the reference to voodoo doughnuts, but I don't think it matters much. Voodoo Doughnuts and a few other places are unionizing. Okay. Is this more or less unionizing than in the past? How do unions affect "Imperial" chefs? Couldn't I have a union restaurant and still celebrate and elevate the chef? Using cinema as an example, I believe there are unions for actors and cameramen and movie editors. That doesn't mean we can't have auteurs and movie stars.

I agree that this is not a great piece but I disagree that this is well sourced. I don't think the sources or examples really prove the point the author is trying to make.

If imperial chefs are declining, let's define what an imperial chef is and count them over time. If you can't do that, let's propose an estimation method. If you can't count or estimate the count of imperial chefs, I don't think you can credibly have an opinion on their decline because it hasn't really been established that they are declining.

The NY Times is engaging in its favourite kink - activism while wearing the garb of journalism and feature writing like a macabre skin suit. It's simply proclaiming only what it wishes were true - that an enlightened and just cultural revolution is underway that deconstructs whatever is deemed to be undesirable (spoiler - anything pale, male and stale). In its hubris it still thinks it has the cultural sway to mould reality by constructing narrative. It is mistaken, and instead which each article of this nature is frittering away its prodigious reputational inheritance painstakingly assembled by generations of journalist that knew what it meant to report the facts and "allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions".

> frittering away its prodigious reputational inheritance painstakingly assembled by generations of journalist that knew what it meant to report the facts and "allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions".

Wait, are you suggesting that the NY Times used not to do opinion? When was this? Practically all newspapers (or at least general-audience newspapers; trade newsletters and similar less so) have, for centuries.

The basic narrative (chefs used not, in general, be very important, then they became this weird all-important publicly venerated dictator figure who could get away with not only assaulting employees, but actually writing about doing so in books, now there's a backlash against that) doesn't seem that out-there...

The Twilight of The New York Times would be a better title. Agreed that this is the epitome of why many have lost respect for the company. This piece feels like a medium "article"

I think at times the anti-NY Times crowd is as eye-roll worthy as the articles they complain about, but I have to say after reading this article, I can't help but agree with you, it is very narrative driven "journalism."

It isn't journalism: it's opinion.

It's in the Food section [0], and tagged with "Critic's Notebook" anywhere the article is linked. That apparently being one of their blog / opinion lines for food.

It doesn't seem fair to look at modern news conglomerates (which typically combine news and opinion) and complain that the non-news content bismirches the journalism.

That content typically funds the journalism, and is the only reason the latter still exists.

A fair shot would be saying "I do not feel like this article is appropriately declared as opinion." Which, maybe. But I think that's debatable, and the NYT certainly differentiates a helluva lot better than Fox News and MSNBC.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/section/food

>It doesn't seem fair to look at modern news conglomerates (which typically combine news and opinion) and complain that the non-news content bismirches the journalism.

And it's just this attitude that has caused the era of fake news.

> A fair shot would be saying "I do not feel like this article is appropriately declared as opinion." Which, maybe. But I think that's debatable, and the NYT certainly differentiates a helluva lot better than Fox News and MSNBC.

This is exactly the point. Fox News and MSNBC are some of the worst offenders - this does not excuse the NYT from it.

Also I remind people that journalism is not just reporting of facts. If it was all newspapers would be lists of factoids.

"Journalism, the collection, preparation, and distribution of news and related commentary"

This is very clearly journalism.

I would still expect proper evidence. This is equivalent of an article saying "The End of Goldendoodles" with the evidence being that my neighbors dog died. We should expect more from an institution that claims to be more

It's not intended to be a record of fact. It's in the "Critics Notebook", which means it is an opinion piece (as is all criticism; do you expect a review of, say, a movie to be an entirely factual document with no opinion?)

This isn't a criticism of a particular movie or book.

> For decades, the notion of the lone genius in the kitchen has fostered culinary creativity — and restaurants marred by abuse and unfairness. This may be the time for change.

This is the first paragraph - it is clearly making claims and an argument for something.

Most people reading this would view this as an argument with evidence as such which it presents - it is not a criticism of a book.