Ozersky's redemption song for the NY Times?

Edit: Welcome! This tedious saga continues over hrr. 

Being the helpful dude that he is, Josh Ozersky took time to share some thoughts on how the NY Times might "redeem" restaurant criticism. The OED suggests that Ozersky means something along the lines of: 

Of a person: to make amends or atonement for (an error, sin, or failing).
To restore, bring, or elevate (a person or thing) into(also to) a particular condition or state. Also intr.
Of a quality, action, etc.: to make up for, compensate for, counterbalance (a failing, defect, or fault).

The implication here is that the incumbent critic for the NY Times has placed restaurant criticism in a state where it needs to make amends for an error, sin, or failing, to be restored to a particular state, and to make up for a failing, defect, or fault. 

This incumbent critic is Sam Sifton, who, as far as I know, paid the caterers at his wedding, but I digress. In the big book of bitchy ledes, this is near the top:

The sudden, but not unexpected, and not unhoped-for news hit New York City last week that Sam Sifton, the unpredictable critic for the New York Times, was giving up his post to accept an enormous promotion within the paper.

"Not unhoped-for," "unpredictable, and "enormous" are my favorites. We will pick up on the actual suggestions later, but for now, just savor the headline, the lede, and the presumption. 

Comments

[Britopia]

Interestingly, the browser headline has "reform." Editorial conflict.