WSJ on Wine Advocate and the travel/ethics issue

[David M. Bueker]

That last one is a really cheap shot that should get you banned if you are not already.

Did you check your cookies? Also Mark does have a way to give folks a "time out" rather than banning. You may be stuck in a corner with a pointy cap.

Banned, as I said, no probation, banned.

I can live with one cheapshot.

Am going to do a thoroughly informal experiment and have my assistants visit one supermarket and the most popular branches of the two best wine shops in Israel to do a random sampling.

Whoa, you have people? Now you're just trying to impress us.

Parker's response to the Wall Street Journal:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=203068

Where Dan's banishment is discussed, as well as an inaugural post by Eric Asimov.

The saga continues...

... Mark Squires is a spineless human being who has trouble engaging a squirrel in a reasonable discussion without resorting to censorship.

Dan, Hi....

A word of friendly caution. Even on the internet one's words can be taken as libel.

And a word of friendly advice. If you think so badly of Mark Squires, why not simply avoid him and his forum?

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

From the FAQ for Mark's board on eBob:

Ultimately, we reserve the right to censor posts that violate policies or that we decide are inappropriate for any reason whatsoever in our sole discretion. Everyone who uses this board does so at the discretion of the owner, host and/or Admin, and all decisions are final. This is a privately owned venture--not a public entity.

That's been there for a long, long time. It's the policy. I know folks don't read FAQ, but those are the rules of the road. Mark/Bob's board. Mark/Bob's rules.

I know Daniel, and he is a passionate (and highly ethical) retailer. I'm sorry he was banned at eBob, but think we should stick here to the wine related issues and not the moderation of another forum.

I do however regard the WSJ article as very pertinent to the wine world. Parker's response is good, but a bit victim-y - he complains about the article without mentioning that he didn't respond to interview requests (and Squires and Miller refused to comment).

Mark Noah, I think a test would be great. I'd prefer if someone who actually scores wine and uses this format agreed to participate, but a few experienced others (like you and David) who have done the 200 wine day would do. A cellar cull sounds fun, but logistically straining to arrange 200 bottles. A more logical approach would be to use a major tasting, something like the Thiese tasting or (shudder) Gambero Rosso. Do you ever attend NYC events? If not maybe we can find a DC event that David and I could come down for. I usually have no problem getting in NYC trade events, but might need help with DC. I'm pretty shot doing 75 wines, so would prefer to be a "judge", but will bow to will. I would be willing to contribute some decent wine to the "post game analysis" dinner, if anyone could still stomach wine!

Indeed for me those rules, and their regular application (along with the general vibe) is why I couldn't contemplate signing up to post there.

... but will echo David in saying, "them's the rules". My surprisometer hasn't twitched off zero

regards

Ian

A more logical approach would be to use a major tasting, something like the Thiese tasting or (shudder) Gambero Rosso.

Pardon the aside, but never having attended a Gambero Rosso tasting, why the shudder?

For those that aren't bored senseless by this (I'm guessing a very small number )... things come to a head here:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=203068

Somewhat surprisingly ( ), the thread has been locked.

Parker's response to the Wall Street Journal:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=203068

The thread has now been closed.

The Wine Advocate is not especially covering itself in glory here.

For those that aren't bored senseless by this

Ian, I feel like I'm watching a plane about to crash and I can't take my eyes off it.

I'm not too sure that Parker (or his independent contractors) understand what is meant by a conflict of interest. I have to sign COI documents several times a year and if such a document were applied to Miller and Squires its pretty safe to say that neither could sign it in good conscience.

Mike

... Mark Squires is a spineless human being who has trouble engaging a squirrel in a reasonable discussion without resorting to censorship.

Dan, Hi....

A word of friendly caution. Even on the internet one's words can be taken as libel.

And a word of friendly advice. If you think so badly of Mark Squires, why not simply avoid him and his forum?

Best
Rogov

I have avoided him, and I did edit the post, much like Parker deleted his post yesterday attacking the Wall Street Journal.

Dinner should be fun, Daniel!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Streisand effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples of such attempts include censoring a photograph, a number, a file, or a website (for example via a cease-and-desist letter). Instead of being suppressed, the information quickly receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2]

The effect is related to John Gilmore's observation that "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it".[3]

--
Perhaps another example can be added ...

I just feel the Wine Advocate has lost any remaining credibility it had. It is one thing to respond to the WSJ in a thread on the forum, but to then lock the thread when some legitimate questions are asked (by Eric Asimov to name just one poster) seems paranoid to the extreme. I feel that by locking the thread and bannning Posner, Parker is dissing Asimov, as well as almost every ITB member in his community.

The affair is spiraling out of Parker's control at this point.

The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized.

The namesake event is well-documented on the net . . . and pretty hilarious: http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html

Once again, I wonder if some of us are holding wine critics to standards higher than those required for sainthood. I also wonder if we are picking just a few nits here....

Parker chose that bed. He gets to lie in it.

I do however regard the WSJ article as very pertinent to the wine world. Parker's response is good, but a bit victim-y - he complains about the article without mentioning that he didn't respond to interview requests (and Squires and Miller refused to comment).

Can't say I agree (that "Parker's response is good").

If you're not willing to discuss the issue with the WSJ when they reach out 8 times to contact you, then you shouldn't complain that you don't feel they covered your side adequately.

Additionally, what kind of ridiculous ethics standard applies to Parker but not the so-called independent contractors? It's simply not credible...

Squires can run the forum however the eBob team likes, but Parker is going to learn the hard way that his claim of consumer advocacy is going to take a significant hit as a result of their draconian approach.

[David M. Bueker]

Jim,

While I can understand the sentiments, let's examine a couple of things.

1. The claim of "8 attempts" to contact Parker was reported by a poster on eBob, not the WSJ. Even Asimov wanted to know the details. How many times did they really try, how did they try (could Bob perhaps not be in Monkton right now), etc.

2. If you read the code of ethics it has requirements for the contractors. While not identical, they are now quite similar to Parker's own. Granted that hasn't always been the case, but at least he has updated the requirements. Let's face it, Parker isn't the first person to fail to update his code of ethics when his business model changed. He also isn't the first one to be caught.

[Robin Garr]

I know Daniel, and he is a passionate (and highly ethical) retailer. I'm sorry he was banned at eBob, but think we should stick here to the wine related issues and not the moderation of another forum.

Very good advice, Dale.

I'm also concerned about bringing enmity from other forums over here in the form of sniping attacks. I won't mention names, but I don't want to see it, and at some point might have to put on my own Authoritarian Hat. If I can find the damn thing ...

At risk of re-opening the debate (and apologies to Hoke etc. for posting this), but Parker has made his views very clear here
http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=203291

I'm not sure this really needs further discussion - I think he's made his position utterly clear and we can all draw the conclusions we see fit from these words.

regards

Ian

Ignoring the particular personalities and organ discussed ...

I am surprised that wine writers do not as a mater of course declare travel and hospitality received from the producer directly or indirectly.

Most travel articles state " .. travelled to Borneo as a guest of ... "

"I have told Bob that I am deeply sorry for creating an impression of impropriety and using poor judgement in socializing with importers who have been good friends of mine predating my full-time employment with The Wine Advocate. I know Bob has always analyzed my work for fairness and independence and never found it wanting"....
This is a direct post from Jay Miller's apology posted on E-Bob. I am not going to go in depth here as I am about sick of all of it, but if Jay is an Independent Contractor, why does he call himself a "FULL TIME EMPLOYEE" ?
In that same area, who pays the tax on the benefit recieved for the paid trips and HUGE bucks spent on the Critic for WA ?
I've been in business a number of years and fully understand the difference between an Employee and an Independent Contractor, BOLI and the IRS both define the differences very clearly. I will defer these questions to those that are smarter than I in this area, but this just doesn't look correct. It is my understanding that as an Independent Contractor, an Entity they are contracted with can only tell them WHAT the task at hand is, not HOW to accomplish it. Thoughts ?
Anyway, Mr. Miller also does the Oregon tastings and I have wondered for sometime what really happens at Mr. Parkers winery where all the wineries are asked to bring thier wines for sampling. Blind ? Distributors ? One on One tastings ? Who knows and at this point. The WA has lost ALL credibility with me, which was marginal at best in the past.
Again, just my two cents
Linda