Like US military intelligence, the very concept of restaurant critics' integrity is oxymoronic, at least in the eye of the hospo community.

Years of being abused and bullied by people who have access to editors' ears on matters of food and wine taste, without good reason, have compromised a role that should be valued by all professionals and consumers in a country in which restaurants play such a critical role.

For many critics the problem begins with the publication for which they write, as most New Zealand publishers consider the role of a critic to be performed out of love, either for the product they review or for the narcissistic thrill of seeing their name in print.

This is unfortunately the case across the board with local media companies, from book reviewing to music and painting, and including restaurants, wine and travel.

This is made obvious by the latest revelation of a New Zealand Herald reviewer seeking free lunch for her family in return for a favourable review. The only unusual aspect of this particular case is the erstwhile critic made her request in writing to a restaurateur who was not prepared to play the game.

Having been informed in the past by an editor that I would be no longer commissioned to write restaurant reviews because they were not positive enough, especially for establishments that were "known supporters of this magazine", I am well aware of the pressures writers face. From the other side I have been told on more than one occasion that an unfortunate experience at a restaurant was only because I did not tell management in advance that I was coming to do a review.

Indeed, restaurants themselves have often sold out their integrity to provide the best possible experience to their customers by taking brewery and wine company marketing dollars to ensure their offerings please brand managers more than they do diners. My recent criticism of Auckland city establishment Soul Bar and Bistro's less than satisfactory listing of Pinot Gris was met with a response that I was unhappy because "none of the wineries represented was in my pocket".

The assumption was, I assume, that as a wine commentator I am in the pay of the same coterie of restaurants that also pay restaurants for their listings. The only conclusion to be drawn is that bribery and corruption are well integrated into the culture of restaurants in this country.

Hardly what is expected from a professional industry, but the real question facing hospo is whether we want to change it, and if so how do we go about it?

The first step would be to get rid of the blatant bribery of bought establishments, whether they are controlled by brewery or winery cash. The second would be to find media organisations prepared to give criticism a fair go.

These changes will only happen if restaurants themselves start to act professionally, and if they are prepared to consider encouraging an environment where fair and objective criticism is nurtured, not abused.

Criticism, by its very nature, is never completely objective, as personal opinions will always present a strong case in any written evaluation. However, there is a pattern of objective, constructive approach which can mitigate most bias in favour of fair moderation that can be as positive for restaurants as it is for consumers.

If we could crack it, we would immediately encourage a more informed and supportive local dining market that will support taking our restaurants to the top of the world, where our food and talent deserve it to be.

The opinions of the writer are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.