Matusalem

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Do you believe that Magrez, or the others, would continue to offer you luxury junkets if you publish unflattering notes about their wines afterward?
Click to expand...

Probably not, but I believe that Jamie would continue to write about wine regardless of whether or not someone was footing the bill. I see him more as a wine writer, not a score-doling-out critic. When I read his blog (or his books), I do so to learn about a producer or wine (or cricket team) I'm not familiar with. When I read that some other critic has given a particular wine four prongs, I might go out Coad-like into the night and buy it because it's two prongs better than some other wine. When I read Jamie's editorial writeup, I might try the wine because Magrez has a cool-looking jet and a helicopter or I might NOT try the wine for the same reasons.

Lots of us in the wine business eat and drink a lot better than our incomes would indicate. That's one of the perquisites of getting to be/having to be in the industry. I see no reason that writers (not critics) shouldn't enjoy the same benefits, particularly if they're as transparent about it as is Goode?

-Eden (I'm no babe in the woods, unable to read through a journalist's scribbling to discern if they're repaying an accrued hookers 'n' blow kind of debt)
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Jamie Goode:
I call wines as I see them...
Click to expand...
Do you believe that Magrez, or the others, would continue to offer you luxury junkets if you publish unflattering notes about their wines afterward?
Click to expand...

I'm not Jamie, but I disagree with Mr. Eden and say, "Yes".
 
originally posted by Jamie Goode:
But Joe
don't you find it amusing that I'm just a dude who was trolling on Garr's board a few years back who now makes his living from doing essentially what I was doing then - writing about wine on the internet (as well as some magazines, a newspaper and some books).

I call wines as I see them, and I think that by publishing pictures of me on the steps of a private jet and the associated commentary I'm being totally transparent about conflicts of interest.

The sort of communication I'm involved with is much more transparent than old fashioned magazine journalism.
Click to expand...

All power to you!

In old fashioned magazine journalism you couldn't accept spiffs, junkets or pay-offs. The web has certainly changed all that for the better!

By the way, I could never find your review of the Magrz~luxury tourism which was your stated reason for going to Bordeaux. Could you give us more details about how long you slept there, which Chteau, where did you eat.

What do you estimate the cost of your junket was?

If Magrez had organized the tasting in London and handed you cash, would that be ok if you showed a picture of yourself taking cash from Magrez?

I noticed in your reviews you really didn't talk about Michel Rolland and the quality of his wines. Was that intentional?

Magrz is a very powerful guy in the wine trade, did you ever worry you were being used?
 
Eden and Joe (Perry) are right. But I've already written zillions of tiresome syllables on this subject, elsewhere.

Do you believe that Magrez, or the others, would continue to offer you luxury junkets if you publish unflattering notes about their wines afterward?
Click to expand...
How unflattering? If one's job is to persuade others to cover one's client, one will not be deterred by an initial failure, and if one is talented at persuasion, not even by years of overt hostility. Living in a household that is 100% opinion-monger (a term I'm choosing over "critic"), this may seem more obvious to me than others, for which I apologize.
 
originally posted by Eden Mylunsch:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Do you believe that Magrez, or the others, would continue to offer you luxury junkets if you publish unflattering notes about their wines afterward?
Click to expand...

Probably not, but I believe that Jamie would continue to write about wine regardless of whether or not someone was footing the bill. I see him more as a wine writer, not a score-doling-out critic. When I read his blog (or his books), I do so to learn about a producer or wine (or cricket team) I'm not familiar with. When I read that some other critic has given a particular wine four prongs, I might go out Coad-like into the night and buy it because it's two prongs better than some other wine. When I read Jamie's editorial writeup, I might try the wine because Magrez has a cool-looking jet and a helicopter or I might NOT try the wine for the same reasons.

Lots of us in the wine business eat and drink a lot better than our incomes would indicate. That's one of the perquisites of getting to be/having to be in the industry. I see no reason that writers (not critics) shouldn't enjoy the same benefits, particularly if they're as transparent about it as is Goode?

-Eden (I'm no babe in the woods, unable to read through a journalist's scribbling to discern if they're repaying an accrued hookers 'n' blow kind of debt)
Click to expand...

Eden:

Isn't it true that your ex-husband was a Public Relations person for wine producers?
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:

If Magrez had organized the tasting in London and handed you cash, would that be ok if you showed a picture of yourself taking cash from Magrez?
Click to expand...

I think this equivalence is drawn unfairly. Even if you assume some measure of payola, isn't it better that the recipient see vineyards and facilities, meet the people who work there, and get a sense for what they're about rather than receive a wad of cash, even if the costs of the trip can be reduced to a lump sum?

And to this point, when you visit a producer on your own dime, doesn't that put the producer out to the tune of (at the very least) the opportunity cost of receiving and entertaining/educating you during your visit? There's no guarantee you will come away liking the wines, or that you will make a purchase in order to defray that cost. But let's say the producer is very charming and hospitable, as producers tend to be. Maybe they even feed you a meal or let you stay overnight on the premises. Doesn't that make you less likely to disparage their wines? Isn't that technically unrelated to the wines' quality? This too seems to fit into the narrow definition of impropriety we're claiming here. So too it seems to me naive to think that just because a wine trip is independently financed it's bound to show less bias.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
If Magrez had organized the tasting in London and handed you cash, would that be ok if you showed a picture of yourself taking cash from Magrez?
Click to expand...
The stinger...

But most 'writers' work on a commission basis; assuming Jamie were to write exactly what he thought, then that would be okay, particularly if there was a picture of the cash exchange, as the readership would at least have the opportunity of 'informed' reading i.e. does the prose look balanced or not(?) More pressure on the writer of-course as this will colour the reader's perception of their work for the long-term - maybe prospective 'employers' too.

Transparency empowers the reader - they can decide good/bad after reading - I'm not sure a picture of a wire-transfer would look all that exciting though...
 
Ethical journalism, investigatative work and good writing empowers the reader.

Slick writing on the take does not.

No reputable journalist ever announces "I'm open to the highest bidder." It is incredible to me that the public discourse has declined to such a low point that Jamie can brag about his freebies, freebies done in a grand manner, and then boast about his calling it as he sees it.

I don't care if he eats a meal, shakes hands, becomes lifelong buddies or laughs at Magrz's jokes. The trip was not in a grey area, taking a private jet and being chauffeured around in helicopters goes beyond the call. The freebie was on a grandiose level and Jamie is proud of it. He's arrived because Bordeaux big shots will pay his way extravagantly because the big shot sees Jamie as someone who can be used. He's so proud of himself, he documents it on the internet!

Goode wrote a puff piece for Magrz, who is a controversial, powerful figure in Bordeaux. He's not just another vigneron.

Do a Google search about Magrz or watch Mondovino. Magrz is a key part of the Rolland empire a proponent of superextracted industrial wines, with a Louis Vuitton touch of branding.

Lastly, in these hard economic times, bragging about such junkets leaves a bad taste.
 
originally posted by Thor:
How unflattering? If one's job is to persuade others to cover one's client, one will not be deterred by an initial failure, and if one is talented at persuasion, not even by years of overt hostility.
Click to expand...
I recall that Bruno Magli made a lot of money off the OJ trial.

Nevertheless, we simple non-mongerers use a simple logic: Jamie's writing is now in the same league as a shelf-talker... written for pay, at the behest of the maker, and I should probably look elsewhere for independent thought. (He has spoiled the validity of his own protestations by announcing that he is on the dole.)

originally posted by Aaron:
I think this equivalence is drawn unfairly.
Click to expand...
I think this equivalence is brilliantly drawn and earns Joe his $30.

And to this point, when you visit a producer on your own dime, doesn't that put the producer out to the tune of (at the very least) the opportunity cost of receiving and entertaining/educating you during your visit?
Click to expand...
What's that got to do with the wine? (ditto the eating and sleeping I've not bothered to quote)

originally posted by Bill:
But most 'writers' work on a commission basis...
Click to expand...
Do you have facts to back up this assertion?

Transparency empowers the reader...
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Readers are empowered when they trust the writer and the writer is honest. Transparency is merely the revealing of the circumstances of this particular bout of writing (in the hope that readers will provide their trust because of or in spite of it). Admitting to gifts that are independently verifiable is not the same as offering an honest opinion.
 
I find it hard to get as excited about this as some. I think the simple focus on finance misses all the subtle influences that shape perception of wine. People like some people and not others, and maybe it's just me, but warm hospitality in a winemaker's home counts for a lot more than a private jet ride, particularly if the wines are good. People are pretty complicated. Human, even, sometimes.

Anyhow, I think one culprit here is points. Someone assigning points has a very simple currency in which to pay for a trip or a freebie. Someone giving a descriptive picture is in another place, and it's much harder for the winery to tell if they've gotten value for money.
 
A couple of other items. Plenty of people with no conflicts also have no experience or no palate. David Lillie, in contrast, is completely conflicted, but I'd rather hear from him about a wine than pretty much any critic out there. Some other folks who are both competent and conflicted have also pickled their palates.

So give me competence and a concern for reputation over purity any day.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
Isn't it true that your ex-husband was a Public Relations person for wine producers?
Click to expand...

No, at the time he was a matrimonial attorney who handled a lot of divorces for Public Relations wine specialists, usually representing the aggrieved plaintiff. But it did give me quite an inside view as to how the whole sordid business is transacted at the upper levels of the industry. With an increasing amount of wine available on the market and a declining amount of serious wine writers out there, brands are forced to do whatever they can (and within their means) to attract attention to their wines. Whether that's providing a bit of saussion and a baguette to a bunch of writers on a trip to Morgon on a regionally-sponsored trip, or wining, dining, and putting one "important" writer up at your guesthouse on a trip to Napa with the hope that they'll write something nice about your vineyard, it's all the way it's done. Baksheesh still exists in the business, but it's not what it used to be 20 years ago.

(BTW, seeing that the tide was turning toward ethics and morality (and thus lower fees for specialist PR firms), the ex moved over to a Personal Injury law firm focussing on plastic surgery malpractice. Occasionally he gets to combine his experience in both fields, like that time (you probably read about it in Wine Spectator) when that winery owner's facelift went awry and his lips were pulled back so far that he was unable to properly drink wine without spilling it all over himself. It was pretty embarrassing to everyone and the ensuing divorce from his 35+-years-younger wife was pretty good for the Mylunsch bank account (alimony department).

-Eden (he's also done well with his "exploding boob" defense when he's representing physicians)
 
originally posted by Eden Mylunsch:

(BTW, seeing that the tide was turning toward ethics and morality (and thus lower fees for specialist PR firms), the ex moved over to a Personal Injury law firm focussing on plastic surgery malpractice.

-Eden (he's also done well with his "exploding boob" defense when he's representing physicians)
Click to expand...

That Chet is one savvy shyster.

Mark Lipton
(On guard now against exploding boobs)
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
I find it hard to get as excited about this as some. I think the simple focus on finance misses all the subtle influences that shape perception of wine. People like some people and not others, and maybe it's just me, but warm hospitality in a winemaker's home counts for a lot more than a private jet ride, particularly if the wines are good. People are pretty complicated. Human, even, sometimes.

Anyhow, I think one culprit here is points. Someone assigning points has a very simple currency in which to pay for a trip or a freebie. Someone giving a descriptive picture is in another place, and it's much harder for the winery to tell if they've gotten value for money.
Click to expand...

I don't follow Parker's palate for most things even if he is not on the dole. Jay Miller's reports on Australia and Argentina and Spain will be every bit as horrible if he is free of financial conflict.

Basically, I ignore these guys.

At the same time, I think reporters and journalists have an ethical duty to make some sort of effort. No one forced them into the profession. I don't want to read a story in a newspaper and discover six months later that the reporter has gotten his wife a job with the subject of the article. I don't think that self-publishing on the web changes any of this.

Wine writing is not just pointing. The more interesting stuff is often reportage and there is not enough of that in the newsletters, blogs, or magazines. The Wine Spectator used to have a reviewer for Burgundy, Pers-Manson, who perhaps wasn't the world's most accomplished wine taster, but when he wrote an article it was well done and interesting. I don't agree with many things Michel Bettane writes but he is one good writer.

I don't want wine writers on the dole. Good, honest reporting is more important than pointing and unfortunately wine journalism is more and more reduced to unreadable sniff, swirl and spit evaluations. I don't care how Goode rates the Magrz/Rolland hyper extracted wines, I do care that he flouts dishonest journalistic practices. Even brags about them.

No one can possibly expect any of these writers to lead a monastic life. Wine is inherently convivial, friendships develop and that's totally normal. We're dealing with normal human beings (sometimes) and wine is a natural product (sometimes) that goes with food. We're not talking about clinical exercises here but wine whose taste, aromatics and alcohol go right to the head. There is absolutely nothing objective about wine, but all we can ask for is writers who are not on the dole.

I'd agree with you that David Lillie's suggestions are more important to me than all these journalists. But then again, its David's purchasing power that puts me on a private plane to St-Aignan international airport.
 
So give me competence and a concern for reputation over purity any day.
Click to expand...
That's 100% right, and a much shorter version of what I've spent days (and days, and days) writing. Would you (the hypothetical consumer) rather the information be useful, or untainted by whatever your personal definition of taint might be? There are those who can't accept one without the other, and for them there's a (nearly extinct, but still clinging to a hardscrabble existence) market that serves their needs. Everyone else has more, and mostly better, choices.

As the Parker/Miller/Squires thing shows, it's potentially dangerous to market oneself as untainted. Less because of the potential for taint (which is what everyone's focused on), but because -- as the zillions of responses and comments have demonstrated -- few agree on where those lines should be drawn. Judging by the comments, some really do expect a monastic existence. Others don't care at all. Most fall somewhere in the middle, and can't agree on the details (e.g. blind tasting is necessary/blind tasting is nearly useless).

Me, I'd rather the information be useful. Or interesting. Hopefully both. More Kermit Lynch, less "(92-94+?)" in the midst of hundred-wine blind tastings. If Kermit can't be trusted, then he's not useful, and the extent of his conflicts doesn't matter. If he can, they still don't matter. Thus my conclusion, which no one need share, is that they generally don't matter, and what I should focus on is whether or not he's useful to me.

Nevertheless, we simple non-mongerers use a simple logic: Jamie's writing is now in the same league as a shelf-talker... written for pay, at the behest of the maker, and I should probably look elsewhere for independent thought. (He has spoiled the validity of his own protestations by announcing that he is on the dole.)
Click to expand...
No, that's your opinion, not the "simple logic" of the situation. Me, I think Jamie's one of the most independent thinkers among the wine writing fraternity, whether or not he's "on the dole." About which I don't actually care, until Jamie's work leads me astray.
 
Actually, I was claiming it's what's on the page/screen/video that counts, but feel free to type whatever nonsense comes to mind.
 
I'd like to state, at this point, that I am open and very willing to be bought for a lot less than a jet. PM me with offers, Ill plug anything. My pride has been smished by bills.

Evita-er-Jamie is a classic case. If Jamie positively reviews wines that are crappy, knowing that they are crappy, people ultimately wont listen to him unless, of course, they like crappy wines (the majorities do). In which case, the sheep need someone to tend the flock.
 
I think you're being a bit mean, Joe. In fact, you are being a lot mean. You're like the school bully who happens to be four inches taller and twenty pounds heavier than the rest and suddenly decides to pick on one of the little kids. Nice work.

I always think the best of others, so I assume this is all in jest. That's OK then.

But please, judge me on my work.

I write quite a bit, for no apparent reward, on natural wines. I champion them. I'm curious and driven by passion. I'll plug anything I think worthwhile. I nevr plug anything I don't like. Or do you see things differently?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top