"Best Of" and Journalistic Ethics?

Alas, it is late September again, time for the annual conceit-a-rama in which dozens of writers whom the Chronicle has designated as critics individually designate some particular concrete stainer, duck vendor, calzone-peddling pizza shop, or sheet-metal fabricator as exemplifying the "Best of Austin" [Sept. 26]. These are always cloaked in the pretext of belonging to a category, one which presumably included at least a few contenders. Any close perusal reveals, of course, that these are actually classes of one, and that the categories are all created after the fact to fit whatever thing the arbiter had already decided, completely on their own, to be uniquely worthy. The Chronicle should at least have the honesty to attach the name of the individual to each of these, and abandon any pretense that they were chosen from something resembling a ballot. The fact that each year you refrain from doing this simply allows anyone in your family of "critics" to anoint anyone, for whatever frivolous purpose, with absolutely no possibility of being held to account.
   Two-dozen pages of ego-stroking disguising itself as critical consensus – a huge waste of space and a flaunting of journalistic ethics.

   [Editor's Note] You got us here - Critics Picks are by writers offering the names of businesses, people, places etc. they find notable with categories created afterward. We thought it fairly obvious that with categories like "Cutest Butts on Sixth Street," "Best Orgasmic Sneeze," and "Best Reunion Since Dean Martin Joined Jerry Lewis at the 1978 MDA Telethon," that we didn't start with a category and then sit around arguing possible candidates.