Accentuate the Positive-Eliminate the Negative...

[Daniel Rogov]

There was a song popular in the 1940's that went...

You've got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on the affirmative and don't mess with Mr. In Between.

The song was made popular again by Aretha Franklyn some many years later. A potentially good way to find pleasure in life, I agree but of late I have been perusing the wine writings not only of bloggers but of those who wish to present themselves as wine critics), and conclude that this is a dangerous trap, for if the simple truth be told, not everything that makes its way to market can or should be spoken of in positive terms. Simply stated, negative reviews are no less important than positive ones as readers are entitled to know what one "truly thinks" of a wine - not necessarily with negativity but with clarity and honesty.

Okay...the person who has no means of identifyiing what may be good, indifferent, bad or horrid is entitled to visit a winery, to write about how lovely the people were who greeted him and then, I suppose to insert the tasting note sheet provided by the winery itself. Entitled, yes...but should it be done? Not in this critic's opinion.

Best
Rogov

[Or Shoham]

Good morning Rogov,

Ironically and amusingly, I have heard people who read your columns in Haaretz Gallery complain about you in essentially the same way - virtually all of the tasting notes that make their way to print are positive in nature and score. Those of us who follow your notes here on the forum or who have read through any version of the Rogov Guide, of course, know that this is not the case - I often make a point of showing a few 50-60 score reviews to people who make the above complaint. However, I think the point may still be valid in that reviews / notes that make it to "print" tend to be the positive ones, since those are supposedly of most interest to any potential readers ("What should I buy/try" is easier than "What should I avoid").

I suppose this brings up the question: how does a wine critic (amateur, self-proclaimed, or gainfully employed as such) decide which reviews and notes to publish in mediums that offer limited space, be it a newspaper column, a website/blog (which technically offers unlimited space, but generally involves readers with a limited attention span), or any other medium? A secondary question for any who think the answer to the first is "Only positive notes" - how does said critic give his readers a benchmark to compare those wines to without ever publishing notes of a negative nature?

[Daniel Rogov]

Or, Hi....

The problem with a colum in a newspaper is that one has a limited number of "inches" - that is to say physical space and in such cases the choice is indeed often to write about the wines that one can recommend. That is largely why my post refers largely to those who blog and to those who have internet sites and/or forums on which they write only about the good.

I once calculated that I could comfortably write about every Israeli wine and the vast majority of imported wines in a newspaper only if they gave me six-eight full pages daily in a paper the physical size of HaAretz (for those not familiar with HaAretz - same physical size as the NY Times).

Best
Rogov

[Lior Yogev]

Rogov,

Very good points in my opinion. I'd like to make two comments:

1. I don't read blogs/websites that only say good things about every wine/winery. I think it is worthless, and worse - I think the non-critical writing hurts the industry and I believe no elaboration is needed on this point.

2. As I usually direct any criticism towards myself before anyone else, I went over the last couple of dozen posts in by blog and did not find much negative criticism. After thinking this through I realized the reason is much like what Rogov wrote regarding the newspaper columns. In the past couple of years I'm investing a significant effort in keeping it short. The internet is full of lengthy, useless information and I have little intention of contributing to such areas of the web. I often review my posts prior to publishing them, and cut down full paragraphs and TNs - just for the sake of conciseness.
If, for example I was at a Rhone tasting and wrote TNs on all 8 wines tasted, I will not publish all of them. I'll choose 2-4 wines that were the most impressive to me, and/or wines that aren't very good but I feel I have something to say about, other than mere blunt descriptions. This is where and why much of my negative reviews of wine don't make it to the blog - I just choose/focus the wines worthy of attention/recommendation. This does not mean however, that wines I write positively about avoid criticism.

Lior

[Yossie Horwitz]

Definitely an interesting posit and one that generated some food for thought for me as I purposely only write about wines I have enjoyed (as opposed to every wine I taste). When I started my wine newsletter I named it "Wine Recommendations" with the simple intent of providing personal recommendations to friends and family. As the intent was recommendations there was no need to write anything negative. As my newsletter is merely the hobby of a wine enthusiast (with a demanding day job) with absolutely no economic benefits whatsoever, I saw no reason to write negative things about wines I didn't enjoy - I simply don't write ("recommend") them and am always happy to privately give my opinion about any wine/winery when asked.

As readership increased and I began to write more about wine in general as opposed to just recommendations, the premise remained simply to recommend wines that I enjoyed as opposed to being a critic or wine writer. When I am asked about a wine I always give my unvarnished opinion for better or for worse but my newsletter has remained solely recommendations - i.e. wines I enjoy and recommend. I taste more wines that I write about and stated clearly on my website's splash page that I only write about wines I enjoy and presumably the people who subscribe to my newsletter agree with my palate at least some of the time.

As to Lior's point above as to no value i obviously disagree. While writing positively about every wine and winery may not be a valued gesture (unless you are a marketer or store owner ), I think providing your opinion only about wines you like has value - people who agree with your palate know that if you liked a wine and wrote about it, chances are they will as well. I don't write positively about every wine and winery and for most wine lovers it rapidly becomes obvious that there are certain wines / wineries that get almost no "face time" as a result of their perceived mediocrity or worse.

[Ian Sutton]

Yes this is something that more and more turns me away from 'critical' opinion when the one thing they seem afraid to do is criticise (or when it happens it feels like it's an attention-grabbing stunt e.g. the recent barbed comments about DRC).

No surprise to hear that the newpaper column suffers from this editing down. Perhaps the remedy is to follow a formula and each week write about 2-3 wines that impressed and 1-2 that didn't. As ever it's the 'why' that counts. Maybe the wines were well/badly priced, maybe the style wasn't something that appealed to the author. It's not IMO about calling out faulty wines (though on occasions this can be valid), but in getting people to think about why they'd consider a wine good or bad.

Perhaps a softer option to have the same effect, would be to each week highlight a wine that might divide opinion. Perhaps it's a very expensive prestige wine, maybe an ambitious showy wine, maybe a simple food friendly wine that might seem wishy-washy to others. Indeed the author could make a point of not declaring their hand, but describe why it might divide opinion. They could always publish their personal opinion online or in the next column. It might even prompt some to buy that wine just to accept the challenge & join the debate.

regards

Ian

[Lior Yogev]

Yossie,

I wasn't referring to wine recommendations in my comment you referred to

Lior