WSJ on Wine Advocate and the travel/ethics issue

I thought the other thread had enough extraneous material that maybe easier to post this separately. Robin can merge if he prefers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124330183074253149.html

Perhaps worth noting that Mr. Parker has posted a major statement about ethics for himself and his writers on his internet site at http://www.erobertparker.com/info/wstandards.asp . Certainly worth reading.

Best
Rogov

[Robin Garr]

I thought the other thread had enough extraneous material that maybe easier to post this separately. Robin can merge if he prefers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124330183074253149.html

No, good call, Dale. Let's give the resurrected thread an opportunity to stay more focused.

Dale, Rogov
Thanks for this - an interesting postscript to the issues discussed across the web recently.

My take on Parker's new statement is:
- Clearly Parker has accepted a certain dilution of standards for his sub-contractors, but has still set some guidelines in place
- There appeared to be no claim that blind tasting is the norm - whilst many will be disappointed by this, at least it reflects what appears to be the reality at WA these days. Better to be honest about one's claims.
- Just the gentlest of side-swipes at the non-full-time wine authors/commentators/critics/bloggers. Unnecessary, but at least not too adversarial
- The comment about the importance of explaining why a wine is rated badly doesn't sit well with the recent trend towards only listing TNs for a wine above a certain threshold score. I expect this apparent contradiction will generate some heat on e-bob.
- Interesting at the end where he opens up to his prejudices / bias against certain wine styles.

I think it's right and proper that he re-looked at this and it's good that he has.

regards

Ian

Perhaps worth noting that Mr. Parker has posted a major statement about ethics for himself and his writers on his internet site at http://www.erobertparker.com/info/wstandards.asp . Certainly worth reading.

Not to side-track the ethics issue, but I found the following statement (that Parker made in the referenced Standards link) rather amusing, given that Chenin Blanc is often exceptionally ageable (well, that and the fact that I consumed a 39 year old Ridge Jimsomare this past weekend).

"Wines that taste great young, such as Chenin Blanc, Dolcetto, Beaujolais, Côtes du Rhône, Merlot, and Zinfandel, are no less serious or compelling because they must be drunk within a few years rather than be cellared for a decade or more before consumption."

Daniel Rogov,

Do you think the statement that Parker's statement on standards (buried on the erp site) is adequate? Certainly, he leaves a lot of questions unanswered. He still claims that they taste blind whenever possible, yet Miller and Squires both claim to not taste blind.

Why would he put that in?

[David M. Bueker]

Dan,

A question for you. David Schildknecht has based his German and Austrian reports on estate visits for many years, even back through his days with Tanzer. He also visits estates in Burgundy. Are his notes now in question? Are all of those tasting notes that everyone found so well done suddenly worthless?

For the record, I don't think so.

Dan,

A question for you. David Schildknecht has based his German and Austrian reports on estate visits for many years, even back through his days with Tanzer. He also visits estates in Burgundy. Are his notes now in question? Are all of those tasting notes that everyone found so well done suddenly worthless?

For the record, I don't think so.

David

Did David S take any trips for free that may have compromised his reviews? For example, after going to Burgundy, did Veronique Drouhin take him to the South of France for a week to sunbathe in August, in the hopes that David S might review Drouhin wines better?

I think not and agree with you. But if David S were best friends with Thierry Theise and went to Germany with him, then vacationed with him in Munich, where they drank 40 different beers per day while munching on Sausages, do you think that info should be disclosed to his readers?

Estate visits are a great tool. Free trips are even better, but I have travelled extensively to wine regions. I spent 4 days in Mendoza in October. I rented a car, stayed at the Park Hyatt, ate at some great restaurants and I think I spent about $1500-2000 for the 4 days (The car rental was very expensive as I do not drive a manual transmission). Jay Miller goes to Australia for a week or two and they spend $25k on him there?

Daniel Rogov,

Do you think the statement that Parker's statement on standards (buried on the erp site) is adequate? Certainly, he leaves a lot of questions unanswered. He still claims that they taste blind whenever possible, yet Miller and Squires both claim to not taste blind.

Why would he put that in?

Dan, Hi....

Obviously I cannot respond for Mr. Parker. I can, however, as I did on the last thread, ask whether we may not be asking so much of the critics that we are trying to turn them into eunochs. As to what Mr. Parker writes about standards, sheesh...even the magna carta is only one page long and even that had to be improved upon.

I must comment by the way that I do not agree with your signature line, that to the effect that "Critics hate criticism". I think honest critics in any field feel strongly that if the critic is not open to criticism neither should anyone else be. Some critics indeed do not like criticized, but then again so do some winemakers, actors, opera singers, authors, artists, and nuclear physicists object to criticism. Generalizations (such as yours about critics) are sometimes useful and even convenient but they are sometimes just a wee bit over-generalized and thus lose their value.

[David M. Bueker]

Dan,

I was really addressing your comments on tasting blind. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

But if anyone of that gang deserves freebies it's David. Talk about a slave to his work. Oof. (Don't worry - I am not saying he gets freebies.)

Daniel R,

Sorry, my tagline is from a couple of years ago, when Pierre Rovani called myself and others morons for questioning Jay Miller's Spanish reviews.

David B,

I am not all about blind tasting. I am not even against free trips. I just think full disclosure is in order. When your employees and even you do not practice what you preach (when was the last time a category in TWA was covered blindly?), then you are doing a disservice to your readers. In addition, you are just flat out being dishonest.

There are many readers (subscribers) of the WA that believe that TWA tastes wines a certain fashion and does things in a certain way. This is based upon Parker's writings about how tastings are done. He has now redone that code of ethics (which should have been done years ago). Nevertheless, he still loves to mention the blind tasting whenever possible comment. As far as I know, it never happens. Miller and Squires even say as much in regards to their tastings.

As a WA subscriber, I really do wish they tasted everything blind (which would probably put the "free trips" issue more to rest).

I think Parker has sometimes become a cheerleader for the winemakers. That is not always a bad thing (most of them deserve cheers) but it can go overboard. His headline "Don't be Denied" over a list of 2008 Bordeaux for example. His constant calling out the names of his favorite Bordeaux winemakers in note after note gets a little tiring too.

I've started to have a strange feeling that the Parker of the 1980's might frown on the Parker of today.

Daniel Rogov,

Do you think the statement that Parker's statement on standards (buried on the erp site) is adequate? Certainly, he leaves a lot of questions unanswered. He still claims that they taste blind whenever possible, yet Miller and Squires both claim to not taste blind.

Why would he put that in?

Daniel
I couldn't find that claim in the new ethics statement - just a reference to some blind & some non-blind.
regards
Ian

I've started to have a strange feeling that the Parker of the 1980's might frown on the Parker of today.

Best line to date!

Jim,
yep, dump that old Huet and Petrus, after 5 years it's just dead.

Actually, I'm trying to wrap my head around that $25,000 figure. He was there for 11 days. Let's see:
$5K for business class tickets (can often get for much less, but let's assume Wines of Australia didn't bargain hunt)
Another $5K for hotels - that's over $400/night for 12 nights. Nice hotels!
Maybe an internal flight or two, probably a hired driver. $3K tops?
That's a thousand a day for food. Holy Smokes!

Wait, was this the trip with his houseboat trip with his old friend? So less hotel nights, and less meals to pay for, and no driver for those days.

[David M. Bueker]

That's a thousand a day for food. Holy Smokes!

Have you seen recent photos? Does Mr. Creosote ring a bell?

Sadly Squires closed the thread on his board.

Really dumb of him, he may not like it, but he needed to endure it for another 24 hours. The amount of interest in so short a time reflects that his board needed to discuss the subject. More importantly, he should not have moderated it; in a thread about conflict of interest, this just adds a surreal edge.

He can expect the bloggers to make mincemeat of him again.

On another topic, anybody else think it rather peculiar to be critiquing a good "friend"s wine. Never mind the houseboat; one is asking rather a lot to expect Mr. Miller to write that any Grateful Palate wines suck. I don't think there is a possibility of writing for the Advocate and scoring your good buddy's wines.

[David M. Bueker]

It certainly at least creates enough of an appearance of an issue that it can't be credible one way or another, except that we then must extend that to any friendship with a winemaker/importer/distributor, no matter how innocent it may be.

It gets to be a lonely world for a wine critic.

The one thing that really bothers me about all of this stuff is that Antonio Galloni and David Schildknecht are starting to be tarred with the same brush. I have tasted with both of them, read their work for years, and consider their wine buying advice to be both sound and as impartial as possible in any real world scenario, regardless of whether they taste blind or not. Neither one has ever steered me wrong. I've misinterpreted a couple of times (David uses some pretty tricky language here and there), but that's my mistake not theirs.

I met Mark Squires once and he was an extremely nice guy and we had a great time drinking wine together.

That said, I think he does a poor job as moderator when these things come up. He seems to have no problem shifting into dictator mode, which is the exact wrong thing to do.

[David M. Bueker]

Matt,

Don't underestimate his being asked to keep things under control.

Matt,

Don't underestimate his being asked to keep things under control.

Ask any PR person, and they will tell you that Squire has totally mishandled the problem. Parker is too smart to have told him to lock the thread. He needed to let the people have their say, keep out of it, and then get another moderator to close the thread after it became repetitive. All this does is underline his peremptory and dictatorial style. If he is too thin skinned to take criticism, he should not be a critic.

[David M. Bueker]

I think you overestimate Parker.

Perhaps worth noting that Mr. Parker has posted a major statement about ethics for himself and his writers on his internet site at http://www.erobertparker.com/info/wstandards.asp . Certainly worth reading.

Best
Rogov

Thanks for posting this Rogov. It makes very interesting reading. And now a little rant.

Two comments in particular. " ... I have never found anyone's wine‑tasting notes compelling reading ... " - quite strange coming from someone who writes tasting notes for a living and probably expects people to find them compelling reading. But maybe they don't, which is why the score only is often all we ever see from winemakers/ producers / marketing companies and retailers.

Also

" Every article and tasting note we issue is attributed specifically to the writer responsible."

I wish winemakers/ producers / marketing companies / retailers / and even those who replicate WA notes on forums/ blogs, would have also do the same. Robert Parker is so influential that many of the notes not written by him, when re-used, are attributed to him, and that is simply not the case. At one stage I was listing every review of Neal Martin's (from his NZ trips) attributed to Robert Parker - not Robert Parker's Wine Advocate - but just Robert Parker, and there are so many - even after emailing several companies, wine shops, etc, I frustratingly gave up. It's not only the Wine Advocate, but the Wine Buyers' Guide too. But as one winemaker who used the 'Robert Parker' attribution told me, they consider Robert Parker a brand. The bottom line I got out of that is, his name is more meaningful for their marketing programs. These are also the people who put the money into the pool to bring the Wine Advocate writer to their country on these regional awareness trips. So I wonder how the Wine Advocate writer feels about his eventual anonymity. The bottom line here is, the ethics go both ways.

Cheers,
Sue