Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

..someone over there said some bad things about me because I reccomended a vintage from Germany (one we did not have a lot of SKU's of btw) claiming that as a retailer, any opinion I had was tainted.

Now I'm curious. I've been posting here for some time, and anyone who reads my posts will know I am a retailer. Do any of you automatically discount what I post because of what I do for a living? I would hope you'd discount my posts because they're dumb or uninteresting, but not because of my job...

Salil
Agree that there are people happy to take pot shots at Parker, Miller and Squires - seemingly most prevalent on e-bob itself, which does make you wonder... What also gives pause for thought, is I can't recall hearing a bad word over there (or elsewhere) about Galloni, Martin or Schildnecht (except the odd murmer about 'selling out' by going to Parker corp).

Parker's response to this query was professional and is the best way to handle such situations - from cricketing terminology - playing with a straight bat. Not always the case with him, but I applaud his handling of this query.

Miller and Squires responded in a manner I wouldn't expect of a professional critic - and I'm sure you wouldn't see Martin, Galloni or Schildnecht responding in such a way. The danger (now very much realised) is that the original story becomes irrelevant, because their responses become the bigger story.

I hope they learn from their boss (and colleagues).

regards

Ian

[David M. Bueker]

..someone over there said some bad things about me because I reccomended a vintage from Germany (one we did not have a lot of SKU's of btw) claiming that as a retailer, any opinion I had was tainted.

Now I'm curious. I've been posting here for some time, and anyone who reads my posts will know I am a retailer. Do any of you automatically discount what I post because of what I do for a living? I would hope you'd discount my posts because they're dumb or uninteresting, but not because of my job...

I don't. Most folks go into the retail wine business because they are interested in it. That generally means they have some level of passion to know what they are talking about. If it wasn't for a small handful of retailers I would not love wine the way I do.

Salil
Agree that there are people happy to take pot shots at Parker, Miller and Squires - seemingly most prevalent on e-bob itself, which does make you wonder... What also gives pause for thought, is I can't recall hearing a bad word over there (or elsewhere) about Galloni, Martin or Schildnecht (except the odd murmer about 'selling out' by going to Parker corp).

Parker's response to this query was professional and is the best way to handle such situations - from cricketing terminology - playing with a straight bat.

In that case Miller and Squires might then be better off not playing outside off stump unnecessarily and shouldering arms a little more often.
(Sorry, HAD to add that in!)

Miller and Squires responded in a manner I wouldn't expect of a professional critic - and I'm sure you wouldn't see Martin, Galloni or Schildnecht responding in such a way. The danger (now very much realised) is that the original story becomes irrelevant, because their responses become the bigger story.

True, the email exchange between Squires and Steinberger's now blown up and now Squires' emails seem to be the big target. That said, I still find it cheap and distasteful for people to begin private conversations and then make them public to others who'll tell their side of the story just as a way of getting shots in.

In terms of freebies, I reckon wine writing would be an incredibly challenging and unprofitable task without that. Given that most critics do cover a lot of fairly high end wines in order to provide comprehensive coverage, I can't imagine every critic out there paying big amounts to buy a bottle of the latest vintage of Grange, Latour or ZH SGN and opening it young. If wine writers are really going to pay for every drop and bit of hospitality they receive, I can imagine some very lopsided P&L charts. From what I understand many either taste the wines with importers, trade events or at the estates themselves and at such events there's invariably some hospitality involved. I don't see how this creates the issue of ethics and conflicts of interest.

Salil
The problem is not that they're worse than other critics - it's that Parker has a whiter than white claim in his publications, where he seeks to commit to an independence few in the trade can match. It's a strong statement and gives him just an edge of additional credibility. With such a strong assertion of independence, it's right and fair this is validated by journalists. Either the standards remain and Miller/Squires simply confirm there was no freebie - end of story. Or they accept that they can't abide by the rigorous standards set by Parker and the wording relating to the independence of Parker publications is softened to a point they can work within - again end of story.

Many critics take freebie trips, tastings at wineries, etc. It is a potential source of conflict of interest that each needs to balance to ensure they retain enough credibility, yet still not find themselves badly out of pocket / out of the loop. Not easy, but Rogov wrote well on the subject recently. I believe Jamie Goode has also done this from time to time on his blog and again recently.

regards

Ian

In that case Miller and Squires might then be better off not playing outside off stump unnecessarily and shouldering arms a little more often.
(Sorry, HAD to add that in!)

[David M. Bueker]

Ian - you might want to remember that Jay Miller had a rather gainful career prior to joining Parker & thus might be able to pay for a lavish meal at Bern's on his own. Asking him to justify his actions to prove or disprove your suspicions is pretty much out of bounds from what I can tell.

Now I'm curious. I've been posting here for some time, and anyone who reads my posts will know I am a retailer. Do any of you automatically discount what I post because of what I do for a living? I would hope you'd discount my posts because they're dumb or uninteresting, but not because of my job...

It's good to know who is and who isn't. After a while you get a feel for those ITB who can't help a bit of marketing; those who just have a genuine passion and those that are very cautious about what they say for fear of being seen as biased.

... that said, I don't really pay much attention to which category ITB fit in here, as based in the UK, I'm somewhat out of the US retail loop.

regards

Ian

[David M. Bueker]

The ITB marketeers don't usually stay around very long.

James, I honestly think most people have no idea what you are referring to.
.

You'd have to add me to those clueless of what James is referring to. I just looked at first 2 pages of highest numbers of posters here, almost all still post, the only exceptions that stood out to me being 2 people who haven't posted in months or years, (plus Bob Ross posts much less, but he has said that was for health reasons.)

I really tried to avoid posting on this thread, because I agree with David B that generally it doesn't reflect well on a community'/forum to comment on another. But James' comments got me interested, and I posted above. And now some leftover Bourgogne and part of a half bottle of '82 village Puligny (delicious, not a typo) force me to add:

If one posts "hope this is ok" and "hope this is not out of line", maybe should think twice about blasting anyone for saying the subject should be dropped. Disagreement over propriety of the question is fine.

If one continually cloaks oneself in ethics and lambasts and casts aspersions on others, one should be prepared for actions to be examined. Who paid for what is not the only criterion, I've never met anyone who I felt wasn't influenced by who they love/hate/palaroundwith/etc

It's one of the oldest "givens" of the virtual world that private emails are not to be published. So on that count I disagree with the blog, though I understand the feeling

I love posts from retailers (or others ITB) as they are far more knowledgeable than most of us (or at least me), as long as they mention if they have
any substantive conflicts (to me, if Dave posts that a 50K case production PN is great, and is clear he's a retailer, no problem. If it's a '82 Puligny and he's only one in US with it, he should be very clear as to his position). The most hilarious part of the whole Dr Vino/Slate thing to me was the idea that Posner was a biased person- I think he has good ethics, and just WISH he sold less AU.

Lastly, whenever one finds oneself talking about "we're better than they are, " I personally think it is a good time to take a good self analysis.

Is there anyone I didn't piss off? Let me know, I'll do another post

Ian - you might want to remember that Jay Miller had a rather gainful career prior to joining Parker & thus might be able to pay for a lavish meal at Bern's on his own. Asking him to justify his actions to prove or disprove your suspicions is pretty much out of bounds from what I can tell.

David
I'd say otherwise - it's not his wealth that we should talk about (which for me isn't really fair game to dig around on). The challenge is that if Parker publications claim such stringent rules are applied re: freebies & other potential conflicts of interest, then journalists are right to investigate potential breaches.

It's by putting the statement up of such (a laudable) intent to avoid conflict of interests, that there becomes a journalistic interest. Without that statement there is no story (and you'll have the declaration to hand - I'm going by what's been posted elsewhere).

regards

Ian

[David M. Bueker]

So if one of the Wine Advocate staff has a nice dinner they are required to show us their personal credit card statement?

It's just wine writing.

I agree with David and Dale that it really doesn't do this board any good to have a long discussion about what's wrong with another board, no matter what the merits (or lack of merits) in discussing the issues brought up in the linked thread. There's some history of friction between boards that's best left in the past. IMHO.

So if one of the Wine Advocate staff has a nice dinner they are required to show us their personal credit card statement?

It's just wine writing.

David
In this instance, a journalist had reason to believe that the dinner & Israel trip did not meet with the ethical standards a company claimed to abide by. If this were Amex or ITT, the same investigation would be valid (albeit a different journalist would have the interest). Ditto if this were a politician. That's what journalist's do (who I'm presuming you are referring to with the "us" above).

It's a story when someone claims something in their marketing, that isn't actually true. This was the story the journalist was chasing.

regards

Ian

I'm in the business with an interest in a wine store in Manhattan Beach CA and I feel completely left out because nobody ever criticizes me about that association. I take that back because Alan W. has alluded to the fact that my politics are not to the right of Ghengis Khan and should be.
Robert Parker has the rep as the fastest wine bottle in the country and there is always someone who thinks they can knock him off of his perch at High Noon or whatever time.

I enjoy reading the ITB posts, brings a different perspective anten provides info we wd not otherwise be privy to..as for the rest of the thread

[David M. Bueker]

Ian - it is the journalist's job to prove something, to show us the facts, not for the "accused" (for lack of a better term) to disprove a suspicion.

David
You're confusing journalism with the legal profession. Journalism will work fine with "I asked you a straight question and you refused to answer" and really loves "I refuse to answer that question, now stop hassling me". It struggles a bit more with a more astute answer along the lines of Parker's, but will lap up the sort of response Miller and Squires gave - it makes good print / blog material and helps circulation, which is proven here as we're discussing it.

I'll respect Frank's comment though and let this drop, but hope it's clear there's no personal axe to grind. More I'm interested in how people handle such situations differently and what we can learn for ourselves (about good and bad ways)

regards

Ian

Ian - it is the journalist's job to prove something, to show us the facts, not for the "accused" (for lack of a better term) to disprove a suspicion.

Think "investigative," David.

[David M. Bueker]

Ian - I think we're focused on different parts of the story, you on the original article and me on the blog releasing personal e-mails & the judgment on someone's personality. That's where the confusion comes in. We're talking past each other.

..someone over there said some bad things about me because I reccomended a vintage from Germany (one we did not have a lot of SKU's of btw) claiming that as a retailer, any opinion I had was tainted.

Now I'm curious. I've been posting here for some time, and anyone who reads my posts will know I am a retailer. Do any of you automatically discount what I post because of what I do for a living? I would hope you'd discount my posts because they're dumb or uninteresting, but not because of my job...

I'd like to second Dale on this one. I respect the opinion of retailers as have some authority, since, second to the critics, they taste more wines and therefore have more experiential knowledge that any of the rest of us. Unless they are a retailer with an online site, they have nothing to gain from posting on a forum like this. And, as have been observed, the ones who do have a sales agenda don't last very long. The retailers here I respect as honest folk who just genuinely love wine, like the rest of us.

And, given the example of Gary V, it is in fact possible to be a wine 'reviewer' with a vested interest, and yet be respected as having a credible opinion.

Unfortunately, from my experience, Mr. Squires has a knack for making personal attacks and using innuendo to thrust forth his agenda. He is quite adept at escalating discussion into offensive judgments of other's intentions. While I generallly agree that emails should be considered private, I feel Steinberger was left with no choice as a means to defend his point. IMNSHO, Squires personifies the essence of the cantankerous and unapologetic individual. He should be exposed for what he is in the hopes that by some miracle he has the ability to reflect and self-analyse.

When I first became seriously interested in wine I joined the Parker board. I found that it was not well suited to beginners. That is how I happened onto Robin's board. Less egotism (egoism?) and much more user friendly here on the good 'ol WLDG.

Linda, thank you for the drvino.com link. My wine retailer friends have been chuckling over the Steinberger-Squires exchange and until now I didn't know what they were talking about.

What can one say about it? Well, maybe forum shouldn't be judged by its worst moments.