“I have something better,” I say.
Her eyes flick to the paper. Then back to me. She doesn’t move. She tries to stare me down, tries to remind me who has the power here, what’s at stake.
I don’t look away.
Eventually, she exhales, reaches out, and takes the page.
She starts to read.
On Professional Distance
There is an allegation circulating that my feature on La Cucina di Rosa, owned by Tom Philips, was compromised by personal involvement.
Here are the facts.
On my first visit to La Cucina di Rosa, I published a short restaurant review that was critical of a specific dish. That review ran as written. It was not amended,softened, or withdrawn. The criticism was clear. The sauce was watery.
What the article didn’t say was that I’d reviewed three other restaurants that day and rushed the piece. I didn’t even realise until it was pointed out that I’d only tried one dish. One dish is not a meal, and it certainly doesn’t define a restaurant.
It was agreed that I should write a feature on the restaurant. That piece did not contradict the original review. It widened the frame. It explored process, history, and context, and it acknowledged that my original visit had been rushed.
Both pieces went through standard editorial commissioning, editing, and approval. Neither the original review nor the feature article was written or published privately. Neither bypassed oversight.
No factual errors have been identified in either article. No quotes have been disputed. No claims have been shown to be false.
Instead, attention has shifted away from the work and towards my private life.
In pursuit of a story, a journalist from theCumbria Timesfollowed me from my home, waited outside another private address overnight, and photographed a private moment the following morning. These actions were then presented as evidence of professional misconduct.
This is not scrutiny. It is surveillance.
I am not a public official. I am not a celebrity. I am a local journalist writing about a local restaurant. Treating an ordinary citizen as paparazzi material does not strengthen an argument. It weakens it.
It is also notable how accountability has been assigned.
The reporting itself has not been interrogated. The restaurant’s conduct has not been questioned, because there is nothingto question. No allegation of wrongdoing has been made against La Cucina di Rosa or Tom Philips, and none would be warranted. The accuracy of his work has not been challenged.
Instead, the focus has been placed solely on the character, judgement, and emotional restraint of the woman who wrote it.
Readers may draw their own conclusions from that choice.
It is also worth asking why, if the concern is genuinely about food standards, the response was not to visit the restaurant, test the cooking, and assess the claims independently. That would have been journalism. Following a writer home instead is a different editorial decision entirely.
I have been asked to issue a public apology.
I have declined to do so, because I do not believe apologising for accurate reporting, conducted through proper editorial process,serves readers, the profession, or the many women whose work is too often reduced to temperament when it makes others uncomfortable.
The allegation being made is not that the work is inaccurate, but that emotion itself is evidence of bias. That is a misunderstanding of the form.
The feature on La Cucina di Rosa was warm because the kitchen is careful. It was reflective because the story behind it is. That is not indulgence. It is description.
I stand by the review of La Cucina di Rosa. I stand by the subsequent feature on Tom Philips and his restaurant. Both accurately reflect my assessment at the time they were written.
What I have no interest in doing is turning my food column into a playground for those who wish to dismiss women’s work as unreliable whenever it contains warmth, judgement, or perspective, and then attribute that work toemotion when they disagree with it.
Readers deserve reporting, not insinuation. Criticism, not character assassination.
I would be lying if I said I hadn’t thought about explaining my relationship with Mr Philips, spelling out what it is and what it very much isn’t. But I shouldn’t have to. It has nothing to do with the article, and explaining myself would only help prop up the lazy idea that women are incapable of being professional once emotions are involved.
