Should Food Critics Remain Anonymous?

A LOS ANGELES TIMES food critic walked into a new LA restaurant and was recognized by the restaurant's staff.

Then, the owner of the eatery snapped a photo of the critic (at right), kicked her out the restaurant and then posted her picture on the Internet for all to see.

"Our purpose for posting this is so that all restaurants can have a picture of her and make a decision as to whether or not they would like to serve her," the owner posted with the photo. "We find that some her reviews can be unnecessarily cruel and irrational, and that they have caused hard-working people in this industry to lose their jobs -- we don't feel that they should be blind-sided by someone with no understanding of what it takes to run or work in a restaurant."

Traditionally, critics have remained anonymous so that they are not provided special treatment at the restaurant. Is the anonymous critic the only way to get a fair look at the restaurant in question?

Or, is anonymity outdated in the age of the Internet, where anyone can post their own criticisms to places like Yelp or facebook?