Am I a foodiot?

This week, another ridiculous buzzword seems to have entered the food world: "foodiot".

The NY Observer posted this article a few days ago lamenting the rise of the foodiot, which it seems to define as anyone other than a professional chef or critic who talks about food or cares about what they eat. Grub Street ran with it, hilariously tagging their article a 'thought piece'. Grub Street seems to define a foodiot as someone who doesn't have sufficient food knowledge to render their food ramblings interesting, or alternatively someone who treats mundane food with undue reverence. 

I have a few problems with the word.

It strikes me as professional critics' defence of their turf against the unwashed masses.  I understand that good critics have a deeper and broader food knowledge than most of us, and can convey the details of a meal with more precise and expressive prose than us mere mortals could ever muster. That's why I read reviews. It just seems profoundly, distastefully elitist to dismiss non-professionals as 'foodiots'.

Another part of the point of the Observer and Grub Street pieces (if there was a coherent point) is that people are devoting too much time to talking about food. I don't understand why a widespread interest in food is a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a very good thing. I understand that people can become food bores (and I hope I'm not one), but people can become tediously obsessed with any kind of hobby or interest.

Finally: it seems like an attack on everyday food. Part of the point of the Observer and Grub Street pieces seems to be that non-fine dining food is not a legitimate subject for discussion. A burger is not worth talking about, apparently, even if it's a great burger (unless it features foie gras and truffles, presumably). Bollocks.

I sincerely hope that the term doesn't catch on.