Imagine a world where food criticism isn’t just for the elite, but for everyone. That’s the bold vision of Elazar Sontag, The Washington Post’s new food critic, who’s shaking up the industry by ditching anonymity and bringing restaurant reviews into the spotlight. But here’s where it gets controversial: in an era where every meal can be Instagrammed, does a critic’s identity really matter? Sontag thinks so—and he’s not just talking the talk. Instead of a fancy reservation, our first meeting took place in a church cafeteria hidden behind a parking lot near Mt. Vernon Square. This unassuming spot, Saint’s Paradise Cafeteria at The United House of Prayer for All People, is a symbol of what Sontag wants food criticism to embody: accessibility, community, and authenticity. And this is the part most people miss: it’s not just about the food; it’s about the stories and history behind it. Joining the Post in November after a stint as Bon Appétit’s restaurant editor, Sontag succeeds the legendary Tom Sietsema, who held the role for 25 years. But Sontag isn’t here to play by the old rules. He’s reintroducing the star rating system and making criticism feel more relatable. ‘How do we make restaurant reviews feel like something everyone needs?’ he asks. ‘Part of that is showing up as myself, on different platforms, so people can connect with the person behind the words.’ During a recent chilly afternoon, NPR’s Leila Fadel and her team joined Sontag at Saint’s Paradise for a delicious interview. After multiple visits, Sontag described the soul food hotspot as ‘more than just a cafeteria—it’s a living piece of history.’ But here’s the question: Can this approach truly democratize food criticism, or does it risk losing the objectivity anonymity once provided? Is Sontag’s method a game-changer or a risky gamble? Listen to the full interview by clicking the link above and decide for yourself. Produced by Kaity Kline, Julie Depenbrock, and Ava Pukatch, with digital editing by Majd Al-Waheidi, this conversation is sure to spark debate. What do you think? Is food criticism better with a face behind it, or should critics remain in the shadows? Let us know in the comments!
