Why do modern food critics sound like a Markov generator seeded with the works of Pierre Schlag?

I live with two roommates, one of whom has the worst taste in television of anyone I've ever met. A particular favorite of hers is Top Chef, and I have come to a grudging acceptance of it as the best of a bad lot. I'm even sometimes willing to watch for minutes at a stretch because a) I'm kind of a foodie who finds the preparation interesting and b) I keep hoping for some sort of horrifying stand mixer accident to sever someone's arm and produce a kitchen-based reenactment of the opening sequence of Deep Blue Sea (Great movie). In fact, with time I might even be able to get the number of minutes I could stand to watch into the double digits, but for one thing: the critics.

The critics they bring in fill me with the most unspeakable rage. They insist on peppering their reviews with insane and meaningless terminology like "deconstructionism" and "discursive context". Sometimes, when they're really on their game, they mix pretentious jargon with the impromptu verbing of words! I actually heard one guy say that he didn't think that the dish "adequately contexted the ethos of the challenge." Oh? Really? Is that so? /stabsselfineye

It's bad enough when academics deploy this sort of bafflegab while discussing their abstract and questionably useful fields of study. To do so when describing food is absolutely inexcusable. As a species that has been eating things for quite some time now, we've managed to develop a whole vocabulary to describe the practice. I suggest you use it and leave the dynamics of interbeing and monological imperatives in Dick and Jane to the philosophers.