All-powerful critics tend to be 'responsible'

Last week, the Four Seasons in Manhattan - a joint favoured by the business elite - was downgraded from three stars (excellent) to two (very good) by Frank Bruni, restaurant critic of the New York Times.

Non-residents may not think this sounds like a ratings upheaval on a par with, say, Moody's bizarre upgrading of three little-known Icelandic banks to triple A status. Think again. Bruni's reviews have an unparalleled impact on where locals eat in Manhattan (and, when he is in the boondocks, Brooklyn).

Ask Gordon Ramsay, London's highest-rated restaurateur, whose eponymous restaurant in Manhattan was damned with faint praise and given two stars by Bruni in January. Ramsay responded in an interview with the New Yorkerthus: "I expected to get kicked in the nuts. I have been."

Bruni's role as nuts-kicker-in-chief to New York's restaurateurs recently provoked one to kick back. Jeffrey Chodorow, owner of the Kobe Club, paid $30,000 for an advertisement in the New York Timesdenouncing Bruni after the latter gave it no stars (poor or satisfactory) and accused it of serving "too many insipid or insulting dishes".

Chodorow's criticisms of Bruni encapsulated the reaction of many chefs and artists when slammed by a highly influential critic. This person has no place criticising my work when he cannot cook/dance/sing/play himself, and it is maddeningly unjust that one individual exercises such influence over whether I succeed or fail.

On the first point, the artists - and those who back them financially - are wrong. A critic is there to tell readers, who are not themselves trained in the art or craft, whether they will enjoy a performance or meal. He needs to have good judgment and sensitivity to his surroundings but not the ability to perform or cook himself.

Indeed, being an insider can be pernicious. It was touching to read of Ramsay's anxiety over his culinary gamble in the New Yorker(although my sympathy was attenuated by the fact that he came to town on a Gulfstream jet). But a critic who is a chef is more likely to pull his punches - and so mislead his readers - because he has internalised how hard it is to cook well.

On the second point, the artists are on to something. Monopoly power in criticism is as undesirable as it is in other contexts. Bruni appears to take his duties seriously - visiting restaurants several times before reaching a judgment, reflecting seriously on his meals, etc - but it would be healthier if New Yorkers were less dependent on him.

The New York Timesand its critics have a stranglehold because it is the city's only broadsheet newspaper. Performances are also reviewed by the New York Post, the New York Daily News, the New Yorkerand New Yorkmagazine, but the New York Timesrules. As Jill Abramson, its managing editor, put it snootily last month: "We are the central arbiter of taste and culture in New York City."

She made this pronouncement in the middle of a loud argument with David Hare, at a film screening; he was upset at a harsh New York Timesreview of his play The Vertical Hour.

Infuriatingly self-satisfied as the New York Timesis, Abramson was right. Hare would have been calmer if she had been wrong. It does not have a monopoly on New York opinion but it has such broad distribution among citizens that its reviews can make the fortune of, or close down, a new venture. Fortunately, its power is now being eroded by the enemy of old media - the internet.

The democratisation of criticism is occurring elsewhere. Any enthusiast can rush to the opening of a film or play and post a critique online. Hollywood's growing tendency not to pre-screen for critics films it thinks will get bad reviews (teen horror flicks and such) puts amateur opinionators on a more equal footing with professional critics.

As a diner and filmgoer, I like this because it provides a free market in opinion. If I am too busy to scan them all, I can fall back on one or two stalwarts whom I trust. It also helps to address one of the artists' and chefs' two complaints - that a few critics can determine the success or failure of their ventures.

But I do not think it will make them happy, because one of their problems is being solved by exacerbating the other. A few bloggers will be insiders and "experts" who feel some solidarity with those they review. Most will be amateurs who are eager to influence others by expressing their views - often the louder the better - about a single performance or meal.

A publication is more likely to be "responsible" the more entrenched is its monopoly. When barriers to entry fall, restraint erodes and it becomes every paper and blog for itself. As Fleet Street's experience shows, critics vie for public attention in an open opinion market by becoming fiercer, not gentler. If Chodorow thinks Bruni is an irresponsible ignoramus, he ain't seen nothing yet.

• Lucy Kellaway is on leave.