Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

Well, maybe forum shouldn't be judged by its worst moments.

Amen to that.

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.

Yes, we should all log-on to Squires' forum and have a good long discussion about this topic...

Jim,

Thanks for the belly laugh.

Alex

Not wanting to re-open the debate, but credit where it's due - it's good to see Parker and Squires talking more openly and reasonably on the subject http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... ge=2&pp=40

I may (or may not) have issues with elements of the detail, but it's an altogether more professional way to handle the queries. Credit to them.

regards

Ian

Sorry for coming in here, but I would like to clear up a few things that were said.

The thread the David Bueker refers to on page 1 that was deleted had everything to do with Mark Squires. He attacked me and said I was biased as a retailer. I then questioned whether critics that took free trips, free meals, free vacations, etc were the ones that were biased. How could I as a retailer, who wants to make as much money as possible, be biased and not want to sell wine? The thread was deleted shortly thereafter and my question remained unanswered.

Salil talks about the dinner at Berns. The dinner at Berns is not the crux of the argument here. Mark Squires has admitted to taking free trips to wine regions paid for by wine organizations. Jay Miller, although has not admitted yet, as he has remained very silent, has allegedly taken free trips with wine importers to various countries, as well as some of his trips may have been paid for by specific wineries to visit them. In addition, Jay posted a hedonist gazette in October of 2007 where he vacationed in Australia on a river boat with Chris Ringland and Dan Philips as well as another Aussie winemaker. Hardly a work trip and hardly appropriate. He also dined at Il Bulli with Jorge Ordonez that very same year.

Many of you may look at this stuff and say, no big deal. However, this week I received an email froma small Spanish winery. They have been submitting their wines to Jay Miller for a couple of years now for review. He has never reviewed their wines. And he does not respond to their emails as to why. They go through a small importer who does not have the luxury of taking Jay Miller on these trips, or inviting him out to dinners. They, along with many others, cannot fly to Baltimore to sit with Jay, and show him their wines in the same manner that Jorge or Eric Solomon does. Clearly, this is unfair playing field. One that, considering the Wine Advocate's reputation, should not exist.

Robert Parker is meeting with Jay Miller tomorrow. He obviously is taking these allegations very seriously. As a WA subscriber of 10 years, I would like to know that the reviews I am reading exist because the wine is being rated in fair competition. Recent events have led myself and others to believe otherwise.

Thank you for your time...

There are 2 separate issues here.
Let's forget Squires, as asked by Robin.

You've raised another one that really deserves a separate thread. Indeed, it has already been discussed on this board, like most important issues.

What we're talking about is freebies and (to paraphrase Sarah Palin, remember her?) "palling around" with people whose wines you are meant to critique.

This is a delicate issue, where shades of gray need to be appreciated.

There are degrees to all this.
Let's not forget, there are different styles of wine writing. There's the "report card" version, with quick fix ratings, and there's the "old fashioned" kind.
Two different approaches.
For instance, if I've been commissioned to write an article on Château Ducru Beaucaillou, I would not find it at all abnormal to be invited to lunch and taste
a couple of old vintages. Have I been bought off? I think not.
Am I beholden to my hosts? Probably more than the "analytical machine tasting" type of critic - as opposed to wine writer. But then, if the wine weren't already
well-known and respected, I would not have gone there in the first place.
Would I have the courage and honesty to say that a wine I tasted was really poor?
My thought on that is that once you step outside percentage points, you have lots of room for subtlety. And there are ways of letting (intelligent) people know that a wine is not so
hot without lambasting it overtly.
Furthermore, I'm wondering if even the most renowned critics would seriously shoot down one of the wine world's acknowledged leading lights. I mean really rip it to shreds.
Everyone has a hierarchy in the back of their mind.

It is very much a question of limits. An all-expenses paid trip to, let's say, Austria by their wine promotion board seems a pretty normal thing to me, because it's of a more or less generic nature. The same trip paid by their leading wine producer, whose wines are reviewed by their guests takes on another dimension.

It's a bit like travel writing. The English papers state that "so-and-so was invited by such and such and airline/hotel chain/travel agency". Things are clear.

I don't think ANY wine writer (sorry Rogov) is totally immune from having his tasting notes affected by his personal relations. This goes beyond the supposed "buying off" of critcs.

Have any of you read the book "Noble Rot" by William Echikson? It is very polemical, but not uninteresting. Anyway, he is a great fan of Robert Parker. However, he inadvertently shows how the man is manipulated, and how people have made a lot of money in doing so.

Even if you never accept free meals/trips/women from a wine producer, the mere fact that you run into people and yes, make friends with some of them, necessarily skews your objectivity. And that is A) unavoidable, B) only human and C) kind of par for the course in an area that is subjective by definition.

Would you have wine writers/critics prohibited from becoming friends with wine producers? Not only is that impossible, it's decidedly unfair. We're not talking about holy orders here, or the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

These people regularly encounter producers and their representatives. They will necessarily interact with them and be influenced by them. What their readers can hope for is that their judgement is affected as little as possible. Because its not being affected at all is a pipe dream.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex, Hi.....

We are in major agreement on many issues. A few points:

... don't think ANY wine writer (sorry Rogov) is totally immune from having his tasting notes affected by his personal relations. This goes beyond the supposed "buying off" of critcs.

No need to apologie for we are agreed in full. That is one of the reasons why it is incumbent on wine critics (more than wine writer) to maintain a certain distance from those in the trade. Indeed, one can enjoy the company of a person and even enjoy the person (albeit not in the Biblical sense) but developing close friendships is very problematic. On the other hand one can thoroughly dislike a person in the trade. The solution is quite simple - not only the conscious realization that one is human and thus possibly so influenced but by follow-up tastings, done blind, to eliminate those biases and that whether the biases are social, chemical (e.g. natural antipathy or warmth) or political.

If a cloise friendship should develop, as sometimes it does, one cannot ignore the wines but has to take additional steps to guarantee (to himself as much as to anyone) that the bias of that friendship does not impact on one's interpretations and thus writings about the wines in question..

...These people regularly encounter producers and their representatives. They will necessarily interact with them and be influenced by them. What their readers can hope for is that their judgement is affected as little as possible. Because its not being affected at all is a pipe dream.

Again, agreed fully. Not only are critics not "saints in general" but certainly have no desire to wind up as did St. Sebastian.
Despite all of which, there was one winery at which it was joked I visited only when wearing my shachpatz (bullet-proof vest). And let us keep in mind as critics are human, so too are winemakers/winery owners/importers/and distributrors who sometimes respect and like and perhaps even admire a critic or, on the other hand scorn or even truly despise them.

Best
Rogov

St Sebastian.jpg

[David M. Bueker]

Dan Posner - you are always welcome over here.

That being said, I think it's important to note that you and Mark have an extrelemy uneasy relationship in which neither party is wholly pure. Granted you tend to craft your comments with more care to blunt the edge, but they still cut, sometimes rather deeply. Mark gets straight to his point, and one is rarely unsure of his intentions.

Reflecting further on the issues.....

I'm certainly not defending Mark Squires because if he chooses to do, that's up to him. And I am certainly not defending myself (I feel no need to do so), but do want to discuss one thing.....trips abroad sponsored by governmental bodies.

It is the policy of at least four of the newspapers for which I have written at various times (HaAretz, Le Monde, Le Journal de Geneve and The New York Times) that while it is clearly a conflict of interest to accept trips from "private bodies", it is perfectly acceptable to accept trips from governmental bodies. The logic is quite simple - governmental bodies understand several things completely when it comes to critics (as opposed to wine writers):

(a) That they are trying to get coverage for their industry.

(b) Indeed sub-trips are planned and dinners arranged and even though the critic may accept the sub-trips not all accept the dinners. Truth is there is nothing more boring than dining witha bunch of wine critics and government functionaries, no matter how good the restaurant may be.

(c) It is almost always clearly understood that the critic can extend his/her trip on the account of their publication in order to visit places not included in the formal itinerary

(d) In my own case, and that of my more respected colleagues, when we receive invitations to such trips the first thing we do is to write a thank you note that including (i) a notice of whether we will or will not accept the invitation, (ii) a clear statement that we are attending in the roles of critics and will write critically no matter from whom payment for the trip comes (iii) a clear statement to the effect that whether we write or do not write will be determined enitrely by our own needs, those of our readers and those of our publications.

(e) More than this, although it is acceptable to accept flights and hotels and probably a few coplementary meals, it is not acceptable to receive any per diem or other cash reimbursement. And that all expenses other than those involved in the formal proposal will be paid by ourselves (or, ideally, our publications)

Also worth understanding that on many of these trips the critic is working from seven in the morning until eight in the evening and then, with luck, skips whatever dinners or entertainments that have been planned in order to have a fairly quick (but ideally good) dinner on one's own (paid for out of pocket) and then to settle in to a hotel room with one's laptoip formalizing thoughts and tasting notes until one, two or later in the morning.

Forgive me for a bit of vulgarity, but serious critics who take such trips seriously are working their asses off, and do not see such trips as pleasure. Pleasurable indeed and challenging as well (because one loves one's profession and wine) but hardly "junkets" which are meant almost entirely for pleasure.

As to Mark Squires trip to Israel - and again, I am not defending Squires in any way - I was with him on four occasions during his visit. I'm quite sure he enjoyed much of the trip but I can assure one and all quite comfortbly that he was working hard. As to his reviews of Israeli wines - I know that he visited wineries that were on the "official agenda" but that he also travelled to, visited and tasted at many venues that were not on that agenda.

In short: I feel strongly that the very best tasting and experiential trips are the ones paid for by oneself or one's publications; I am firmly opposed to accepting trips abroad by private bodies; and despite that I see no conflict of interest in accepting such trips from governmental bodies so long as the critic involved knows the "rules of the game" from an ethical point of view.

As always, questions and objections are warmly invited...

Best
Rogov (who, as stated above is neither St Sebastian, who I believe was somewhat foolish in his behavior or St Francis of Assisi whom I admire without reservation).

Jancis Robinson had an interesting article on the question of ethics:
http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/a20090418.html

Jeez, didn't any of you see "Mondovino"? There's a segment where we learn that James Suckling reviews his landlord's wines. The interviewer (Nossiter?) even asks whether Suckling will get a break on his rent if he raises the score. It's hilarious, and also depressing, since Suckling doesn't seem to have any idea that his position is, shall we say, a bit compromised.

Regarding travel freebies: I'm a retailer, not a reviewer, and when I was offered a week to visit wineries in Argentina and Chile, I took it. The importer who sponsored me got mixed results: I came away impressed with some operations (Acheval Ferrer, Pascual Toso, Montes, Santa Ema) and unimpressed by others (Norton, Kaiken). Not that it matters, particularly. I'm world-famous only in Asheville.

Dave, Dave and in case I missed one...Dave,

D Bueker, yes it is true. Mark and I have a very hostile relationship, which started at some point unclear to me, when he started deleting much of what I said, when he accused me of having hidden agendas to drum up business on that bulletin board. I think you would agree (I hope) that based upon my postings over there, I have no agenda to drum up business. I suck up to no one and speak truthfully about the wine business. I am one of the few people there that can offer up the inside scoop of working ITB. At this point, we no longer speak to each other via email.

Dave E.

Your trip to Argentina and Chile is totally appropriate. I commented on the Parker board yesterday, here it was...

I do think it is great for Mark to visit emerging wine areas. If Jay, Neal, David and Antonio are covering any emerging areas, I would expect the same of them. I would hardly consider Piedmont, Champagne, Burgundy, Spain or Australia emerging, but I still hope that they get to those regions as well, as I do recognize the importance of seeing the wineries and the vineyards.

I have taken many wine trips, as a retailer, and all but two, were paid for out of my company's pocket. It helps to keep an open mind as a retailer, and probably more so as a critic, to travel to different wineries and different wine regions on your own. When you are travelling with just one importer, you are ONLY gong to taste his/her wines. Knowing you are on their dime (whether it be private jets, meals, cars, vacations etc) puts a wine critic in a strange spot, where they may no longer be able to taste "blindly" even if they know what the wines are. While that may be easier, a critic needs to recognize that there are many many many producers out there and with the clout that the Wine Advocate has, it is much more important, IMO, to not cross those barriers. I see that you recognize that, as you have never put yourself in these precarious positions. It would be unfortunate that other critics may have put themselves in those unfortunate positions where they feel that they have to play favorites to certain wineries or importers just because they are not out of pocket.

Naturally, having lunch at Ch Ducru Beaucaillou is perfectly fine, however having Ducru pay for your airfare, lodging and meals might be deemed a little inappropriate given the circumstances.

As others have said, it is fine line as to what is appropriate. Jay Miller, for example, had many friends ITB before he became a wine critic, because he was ITB for 25 years. One of those friends was Bob Parker. It is difficult to avoid mixing business with pleasure, however, one must find a way, especially when you are a wine critic for TWA.

A very good read, worth clicking on the Wine Spectator comments!

http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/20 ... #more-2414

Regarding travel freebies: I'm a retailer, not a reviewer, and when I was offered a week to visit wineries in Argentina and Chile, I took it. The importer who sponsored me got mixed results: I came away impressed with some operations (Acheval Ferrer, Pascual Toso, Montes, Santa Ema) and unimpressed by others (Norton, Kaiken). Not that it matters, particularly. I'm world-famous only in Asheville.

Very different in my eyes- you're a retailer sampling possible things to buy. In a sense no different than me going to a store tasting.

Very different for a critic. The squabble is about two things, both of which have pitfalls. As to paid trips, it really should be disclosed (in advance, no questioning needed). If San Marino wants to pay for a critic to come and taste thie wines of their country, it should be disclosed, but other than that I see no real issue. If a trade organization called Wines of Liechtenstein (comprised of 50 of Liechtenstein's 87 wineries) wants to fly in a critic and chauffeur him/her around to member wines, it becomes murkier if critic writes an article on the country's wines. Certainly the rest of the wineries are then at a competitive disadvantage.

The other issue is friendships. Let's just assume the critic pays his own way, if he has dinner he always pays his share.etc. It's probably impossible to avoid making friends with those that one comes into contact with during business (assuming one is reasonably functional as a social animal). But I would contend that if one is in a critical position, socializing with those whose wares you review outside of necessary business meetings is unwise. Criticism is inherently subjective, maybe if you were an analytical chemist one could guarantee no subconscious bias, but not in something as subjective as wine criticism.

Of course, one reason that this got so much attention was that RP and company have been quite vocal about how others were too cozy with the trade, especially some British critics, and quick to accuse others of being "biased" (as in the original Slate article Posner only said that high end Aussie wine sales were way down, this was bewildering- in this case that seems fairly objective).

Jancis Robinson had an interesting article on the question of ethics:
http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/a20090418.html

Thanks Dale for posting this link. A good read and an important one. And, from a thoroughly personal point of view, I was delighted to see that Ms. Robinson and I seem to be in full and complete agreement about every point she makes.


Best
Rogov

Squires seems to be a bit of a snob after reading the entire printed exchange. Wonder if the history goes a little deeper between the two?

[Jenise]

dposner:

however having Ducru pay for your airfare, lodging and meals might be deemed a little inappropriate given the circumstances.

Right. Anyone who would attempt to claim that objectivity can be maintained under such circumstances has to be lying to themselves: that wineries continue to be willing to undertake such expenses is ample evidence of their experience that gratuities always pay off.

Ha, it’s April, everyone must be doing his or her annual ethic training. My employer “ordered” us to complete it by April 20. It is made up of 10 questions or should I say scenarios, and you have to give the “best” possible (multiply choice) answer. I wonder what the ethic-training questions or scenarios for the WA or WS comprises of?

Salute

Jenise

Very well said.

In any event, Dr. Vino has posted again...maybe Monkton will take him seriously this time...as just telling us that Miller will not travel to Argentina any longer does not appear to be the entire issue.

http://www.drvino.com/

You can also view Joe Dressner's viewpoint here...

http://captaintumorman.com/#232

Where there is smoke, there is usually fire...

Joe is a bit off the wall, so be careful.

Daniel
Thanks for the link to Joe's site - I had not seen the 'declaration' from Parker that is the focal point of the debate. That's vital context to the debate. It appears to say what he sees as the ideal/requirement for independence. Is there anything else that more directly states the policy his publications will abide by?
regards
Ian

[David M. Bueker]

Parker has always had a statement of independence of sorts on the front page of The Wine Advocate. what's interesting is his equivocation regarding his "independent contractor" staff.

[James Roscoe]

Dressner is a hoot. He is too hilarious to take seriously! Somewhere in there he makes a good point.

Dressner is a hoot. He is too hilarious to take seriously! Somewhere in there he makes a good point.

He is a hoot. I love him.

[James Roscoe]

Dressner is a hoot. He is too hilarious to take seriously! Somewhere in there he makes a good point.

He is a hoot. I love him.

Chef, have you and Dressner ever been seen in the same place together? I am just wondering.....