Joe Dressner
Joe Dressner
I'd like to thank the editorial staff at CaptainTumorMan.com for their permission to reprint this article. Written at one in the morning, revised when I woke up on Thursday.
Particularly the bad ones with no track record and with their hands extended for free trips, handouts, bribes and meals.
I've been reading lots of commentary lately about the importance of wine critics keeping their distance from wine producers, importers and various other nefarious characters. I certainly think this is true and was shocked to learn that someone who works for Robert Parker's Wine Advocate accept government money to travel and taste in wine regions. Mark Squires who covers Israel, Portugal dry wines and Pennsylvanian viticulture freely admits to taking Isreali government money for his Wine Advocate articles on that countrie's wineries.
I've had differences with Mr. Parker wine reviews over the years because he has loved too many wines I find spoofulated and undrinkable. But the man has always been honest and stuck hard to his principles. I've questioned his taste and his contempt for people who disagree with him, but I have never doubted his honor and integrity. The man is a great talent but one I often disagree with. That's fair enough.
What shocks me about Squires is that Parker has always been clear about The Wine Advocate not accepting freebies. From Parker's book:
Two principal forces shaped my view of a wine critic's responsibilities. I was then, and remain today, significantly influenced by the independent philosophy of consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Moreover, I was marked by the indelible impression left by my law school professors, who in the post-Watergate era pounded into their students' heads a broad definition of conflict of interest. These two forces have governed the purpose and soul of my newsletter, The Wine Advocate, and of my books.
In short, the role of the critic is to render judgments that are reliable. They should be based on extensive experience and on a trained sensibility for whatever is being reviewed. In practical terms, this means the critic should be blessed with the following attributes:
Independence: It is imperative for a wine critic to pay his own way. Gratuitous hospitality in the form of airline tickets, hotel rooms, guest houses, etc., should never be accepted either abroad or in this country. What about wine samples? I purchase more than 75% of the wines I taste, and though I have never requested samples, I do not feel it is unethical to accept unsolicited samples that are shipped to my office. Many wine writers claim that these favors do not influence their opinions. Yet how many people in any profession are prepared to bite the hand that feeds them? Irrefutably, the target audience is the wine consumer, not the wine trade. While it is important to maintain a professional relationship with the trade, I believe the independent stance required of a consumer advocate often, not surprisingly, results in an adversarial relationship with the wine trade. It can be no other way. In order to pursue this independence effectively, it is imperative to keep one's distance from the trade. This may be misinterpreted as aloofness, but such independence guarantees hard-hitting, candid, and uninfluenced commentary.
I've had dealings with Mr. Parker in the past and I know this is how he operates. He owns The Wine Advocate and he establishes the editorial policies. If Squires wants the job he should be forced to live up to the ethical standards of the boss.
There has also been a lot of complaining about Jay Miller, another Wine Advocate Staff Writer, being too close to importers and having too much fun in Florida restaurants. No one is accusing him of taking money, as far as I can tell, but there is only a lot of mud-slinging going on. I don't care who Jay Miller's friends are and Parker is not running a monastery. Leave poor Jay alone unless there is proof that he has accepted money, handouts, free meals or government money!
I hope this is resolved quickly and that Mr. Parker does the right thing. Like him, I'm also sick of bloggers throwing mud at him. Dr. Vino, who started this, accepts hand outs. Today, I met a guy at our LA tasting who went on two freebies with the Doctor. So, I view his "reporting" as pure gossip and vindictive mucking-about meant to make Dr. Vino's reputation. Dr. Vino seems to be accusing Parker's staff of accepting handouts that he would gladly accept. To me, this is just a silly publicity stunt against Parker. Mr. Coleman only admitted to taking government sponsored trips during the discussion vilifying Robert Parker!
Lastly, Squires has developed a reputation for arbitrary, hostile and erratic behavior on his Bulletin Board. Mr. Parker ought to ask him to calm down. Squires was recently terribly impolite and abusive with the respected and excellent wine journalist Mike Steinberger for no apparent reason. Squires' comments were at best bullyish.
Parker and Squires always make it sound as if they are being persecuted when someone disagrees with them. Lets get real....Robert Parker remains the most powerful and influential wine personality in the world today. It is almost comical to talk about persecution.
His power does mean that people are going to snipe at him and try to call him out for hypocrisy and make startling discoveries that he is not Jesus Christ and has failings. So, I do hope Parker cleans up this mess. Lets talk about his wine judgements but not whether he dines out too often with some wine luminary (where Parker pays his way). I don't like fake scandals and Mr. Parker can clean this up quickly.
So, what is my war on wine journalists? Somehow there is an image that those of us with wine to sell are constantly trying to seduce journalists for good reviews. There is a lot of that going around and I can't say that I'm not happy to receive a good review for our vignerons.
We are delighted to get samples (we tend to have a tiny sample allocation from our producers), arrange appointments by e-mail or telephone in Europe and supply information to journalists who do their work and maintain their independence. We may get good or bad reviews, but at least we know that the reviewer was not bribed or corrupt. Most of our samples cost us money and it is an expense for us to mail out samples all the time. But we are happy to work with the handful of independent critics around who have a real track record, are not fly-by-night operations and are not writing on a whim and a payoff. We think it is imperative that bloggers, free-lancers and journalists make it clear when they have been financed by governments, trade associations, importers or producers.
But on the whole, what the critics say is secondary to our work. We import wines we like and things have gone too far for years now, as producers and importers cater their offerings to what will be reviewed well. But what's the point of being a niche importer if we don't import wines that are unique, peculiar and revelatory?
We think it is not only important that critics keep a distance from importers, but that importers keep a critical distance from the press and produce and import wine they love. Wines that are real, honest and come from the earth. In this post-Madoff era, not everything should be about making money by one Ponzi scheme or another. Wine comes from the earth and was here before Bernie Madoff and will be here after he dies in his jail cell.
I have to take my anti-convulsion medicine and go to sleep.
Particularly the bad ones with no track record and with their hands extended for free trips, handouts, bribes and meals.
I've had differences with Mr. Parker wine reviews over the years because he has loved too many wines I find spoofulated and undrinkable. But the man has always been honest and stuck hard to his principles. I've questioned his taste and his contempt for people who disagree with him, but I have never doubted his honor and integrity. The man is a great talent but one I often disagree with. That's fair enough.
What shocks me about Squires is that Parker has always been clear about The Wine Advocate not accepting freebies. From Parker's book:
Two principal forces shaped my view of a wine critic's responsibilities. I was then, and remain today, significantly influenced by the independent philosophy of consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Moreover, I was marked by the indelible impression left by my law school professors, who in the post-Watergate era pounded into their students' heads a broad definition of conflict of interest. These two forces have governed the purpose and soul of my newsletter, The Wine Advocate, and of my books.
In short, the role of the critic is to render judgments that are reliable. They should be based on extensive experience and on a trained sensibility for whatever is being reviewed. In practical terms, this means the critic should be blessed with the following attributes:
Independence: It is imperative for a wine critic to pay his own way. Gratuitous hospitality in the form of airline tickets, hotel rooms, guest houses, etc., should never be accepted either abroad or in this country. What about wine samples? I purchase more than 75% of the wines I taste, and though I have never requested samples, I do not feel it is unethical to accept unsolicited samples that are shipped to my office. Many wine writers claim that these favors do not influence their opinions. Yet how many people in any profession are prepared to bite the hand that feeds them? Irrefutably, the target audience is the wine consumer, not the wine trade. While it is important to maintain a professional relationship with the trade, I believe the independent stance required of a consumer advocate often, not surprisingly, results in an adversarial relationship with the wine trade. It can be no other way. In order to pursue this independence effectively, it is imperative to keep one's distance from the trade. This may be misinterpreted as aloofness, but such independence guarantees hard-hitting, candid, and uninfluenced commentary.
I've had dealings with Mr. Parker in the past and I know this is how he operates. He owns The Wine Advocate and he establishes the editorial policies. If Squires wants the job he should be forced to live up to the ethical standards of the boss.
There has also been a lot of complaining about Jay Miller, another Wine Advocate Staff Writer, being too close to importers and having too much fun in Florida restaurants. No one is accusing him of taking money, as far as I can tell, but there is only a lot of mud-slinging going on. I don't care who Jay Miller's friends are and Parker is not running a monastery. Leave poor Jay alone unless there is proof that he has accepted money, handouts, free meals or government money!
I hope this is resolved quickly and that Mr. Parker does the right thing. Like him, I'm also sick of bloggers throwing mud at him. Dr. Vino, who started this, accepts hand outs. Today, I met a guy at our LA tasting who went on two freebies with the Doctor. So, I view his "reporting" as pure gossip and vindictive mucking-about meant to make Dr. Vino's reputation. Dr. Vino seems to be accusing Parker's staff of accepting handouts that he would gladly accept. To me, this is just a silly publicity stunt against Parker. Mr. Coleman only admitted to taking government sponsored trips during the discussion vilifying Robert Parker!
Lastly, Squires has developed a reputation for arbitrary, hostile and erratic behavior on his Bulletin Board. Mr. Parker ought to ask him to calm down. Squires was recently terribly impolite and abusive with the respected and excellent wine journalist Mike Steinberger for no apparent reason. Squires' comments were at best bullyish.
Parker and Squires always make it sound as if they are being persecuted when someone disagrees with them. Lets get real....Robert Parker remains the most powerful and influential wine personality in the world today. It is almost comical to talk about persecution.
His power does mean that people are going to snipe at him and try to call him out for hypocrisy and make startling discoveries that he is not Jesus Christ and has failings. So, I do hope Parker cleans up this mess. Lets talk about his wine judgements but not whether he dines out too often with some wine luminary (where Parker pays his way). I don't like fake scandals and Mr. Parker can clean this up quickly.
So, what is my war on wine journalists? Somehow there is an image that those of us with wine to sell are constantly trying to seduce journalists for good reviews. There is a lot of that going around and I can't say that I'm not happy to receive a good review for our vignerons.
We are delighted to get samples (we tend to have a tiny sample allocation from our producers), arrange appointments by e-mail or telephone in Europe and supply information to journalists who do their work and maintain their independence. We may get good or bad reviews, but at least we know that the reviewer was not bribed or corrupt. Most of our samples cost us money and it is an expense for us to mail out samples all the time. But we are happy to work with the handful of independent critics around who have a real track record, are not fly-by-night operations and are not writing on a whim and a payoff. We think it is imperative that bloggers, free-lancers and journalists make it clear when they have been financed by governments, trade associations, importers or producers.
But on the whole, what the critics say is secondary to our work. We import wines we like and things have gone too far for years now, as producers and importers cater their offerings to what will be reviewed well. But what's the point of being a niche importer if we don't import wines that are unique, peculiar and revelatory?
We think it is not only important that critics keep a distance from importers, but that importers keep a critical distance from the press and produce and import wine they love. Wines that are real, honest and come from the earth. In this post-Madoff era, not everything should be about making money by one Ponzi scheme or another. Wine comes from the earth and was here before Bernie Madoff and will be here after he dies in his jail cell.
I have to take my anti-convulsion medicine and go to sleep.
