Ethics and wine critics

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:45 pm

Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124330183074253149.html

I do not think the issue is simple.
I have written articles in the past and, as a result, enjoyed fine meals with old bottles.
And, yes, have been given wine.

However, there *are* limits, and the Parker team has clearly crossed them to me and many others.

I am reminded of the big hoo-ha in Westminster. The MPs of all persuasions have been found to be on the take,
albeit in a more-or-less legal way.
Some people say "What's all the fuss about? Everyone knows most politicians are crooked".

Perhaps others feel the same way about wine writers...

Best regards,
Alex R.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:57 pm

Nice work if you can get it.

What's pathetic is the WSJ is reporting stories that others break on their blogs.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:04 pm

Hmmm that article is quite a kick in the groin to RMP.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:23 pm

I guess if you hold yourself up to be a saint (when it comes to ethics) people will hold you to the highest standards and you are headed for a fall. Alex used a political analogy...I remember when Tony Blair became prime minister, he said his government would be "whiter than white" but it wasn't long before his repuation was in tatters, presiding as he did over the most corrupt administration since WWII.

I dont think anyone really takes the WA Aussie reviews seriously anymore anyway. This is further reason to doubt them.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:09 pm

Parker has listed his ethics policy for his writers on ebob:

http://www.erobertparker.com/members/in ... ndards.asp

stefan

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:57 pm

I think Parker diminishes himself when he cavorts with the likes of Mark Squires, who seems like a worm to me. I think he (Parker) rarely enhances himself when he participates in discussions over on the Squires site. If he were smart, he'd do like Meadows and focus on less regions and return to being a one man show. Then again, 50,000+ Advocate subscriptions at $75 a pop... that's over $3.7 million a year... and that's not including his books and other money-making enterprises.... And I'm guessing the overhead is fairly limited in producing the Advocate.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Wed May 27, 2009 11:47 am

Well said Jim.
What can you say about somebody who let his buddies become "wine critics" so they can share some of the proceeds and get perks?
What are Squires' or Miller's actual credentials?
Ravonni came/left and then the Thomases BS , the buddy critics and all the "pay me" features.
All things that make you say , "Hmmmmmmmmmm."

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:26 pm

Yeah, I don't know anything (like everyone else), but at least I admit it. There's a real arrogance/smugness/uptightedness over there. I try to go over there no more than once a month or so, or when someone here points out something, but I just find myself coming away rolling my eyes. It's a pretty gross place. And you're right, who the fuck are Mark Squires and Jay Miller, what makes them "experts"? I've always been a Parker fan but I'm starting to have some doubts. I think that WSJ article raises some legitimate questions, and it is hilarious to see the usual sycophants defending Squires et al. At one point Parker goes on the offensive and starts attacking the WSJ. He really diminishes himself when he does that. Now I see Squires has "closed" the discussion that is raising concerns about his actions. Gross.

Jay Winton · Post by **Jay Winton** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:49 pm

I've bought some wine from Daniel Posner and we've traded a few emails. He's not a Bordeaux fan and I hope to get together with him sometime and try to change his mind. He's really been stirring the pot on the Miller issue (with good reason I think). Niller owned a winestore in Baltimore for a number of years and is an old drinking buddy of RP so hence the relationship. I think Squires has a pretty good palate, at least with Bordeaux given his TNs I've read over the years. I also tried to get him to come to a BWE event in DC a few years ago but he declined. He's very protective of RP and his reputation. You know me, it's wine not world peace.

Rieslingfan · Post by **Rieslingfan** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:57 pm

A few points:

1. Mark Squires has been tasting & writing about wine for years - from way back to the original Prodigy days. Add to the fact that virtually anyone (except perhaps Daniel Rogov) would be new to Israeli wines, and the world is only just now waking up to the quality of Portugese wines. I don't think there would be a lot of credentials out there for anyone.

2. The most recent discussion that was closed own was a repetition of a prior (15 page+) discussion that kept wrapping around its own axle. The only new thing was that a different publication re-hashed the discussion.

3. Go back in history, and Jay Miller was Parker's tasting partner for years. Heck, Parker was just a lawyer who liked wine. What made him more qualified than our benevolent dictator? What are the qualifications for a professional wine critic other than a love of wine & decent tasting ability? I'm no fan of Jay Miller, but (putting aside his indiscretions in dinner companions) just because people think his scores are too high doesn't invalidate his ability as a wine critic. So he likes big wines more than other people.

As far as trips to emerging wine regions - I can see taking promotional trips to places that have never seen coverage in the past. But Argentina? Now that's a stretch.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:33 pm

One major point you left out.
Our BD is not running a commercial enterprise for profit.
I'm sure it has cost him in both time and money to support this endeavor.

You're free to support the Wine Advocate with your dollars.

Rieslingfan · Post by **Rieslingfan** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:38 pm

And folks who don't like how the Wine Advocate is doing business are free to cancel their subscriptions.

William P · Post by **William P** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:26 pm

This is a non-event for me. I cancelled my subscription two years ago. I don't drink Aussie or Portugese wine and they have a weak burgurdy section. I know enough about bordeaux to buy my own and I don't buy many futures because of my age. No big deal, but I guess we need something to talk about.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 27, 2009 5:35 pm

It's not world peace to me, rieslingfan. My biggest problem with the Squires site is that everyone seems to take themselves so seriously, it seems very uptight to me. Josh Wertlieb is the perfect example to me. He used to be this nice kid from Boston, humble, self-deprecating, funny, etc. Now he's become a monster over there on the Squires site, nasty, he knows it all, etc. But that's just my observation, I'm sure many others disagree. I'll probably continue to subscribe to the Wine Advocate because I like Parker's writings on Bordeaux, but I really don't read much from the other issues. And I do think he was stung by the WSJ article, no matter how much he and Squires try to downplay it.

Rieslingfan · Post by **Rieslingfan** » Wed May 27, 2009 6:07 pm

I agree that Parker has been stung by the whole thing, and I also agree that it's not world peace.

eBob stopped being fun about 2-3 years ago. I keep going back because I have friends there that I connect with, and I keep hoping to read some of David Schildknecht's rather densely packed prose.

ChrisW · Post by **ChrisW** » Wed May 27, 2009 8:48 pm

I think that in itself the sponsored activities of some of the wine writers of the WA are quite harmless given what is done and accepted by almost all other wine publications. I think that it is only an issue (albeit quite a non-issue) because Parker himself has always tried to adhere to extremely strict rules and has also used this as a marketing tool. This in itself is quite ironic and even a bit funny.

In the Netherlands we have a saying which is rougly translated as " high trees catch a lot of wind". I'm sure that there must be something similar in English and I think that this explains a lot of the critisism directed at Parker. I like the WA and would not know with what kind of publication I could replace it.

kindest regards,

ChrisW

PS, Jim: I do not know Josh or what he has done, but is it really necessary to call people a monster and to say that everybody at the squires forum (which are a lot of people) takes themselves too seriously? I do not write on the squires site, but it seems to me that they virtually never throw mud such as this on that site. Feel free to delete this comment.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:02 pm

Don't take my words too seriously, Chris, I'm sure the Squires site will survive despite my ever-important opinions.
And of course I don't mean every single person on the Squires site, just most of them. I do think Josh has written some pretty yucky stuff over there, though.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:23 pm

There is a lot more chest thumping over on the Squires board than what we see here, but in general I agree with what ChrisW wrote, both about the Squires board and the ethical issues.

Parker is going to take it in the chops because of his well-publicized policy and the contrast with what has happened with Miller and, perhaps to a lesser extent, with Squires. From what I've read, it doesn't appear that Squires acted unethically. Miller's actions certainly give the appearance of a conflict. But this will blow over. I wonder how many people really care what Jay Miller or Mark Squires do with respect to conflicts of interest, real or imagined. They aren't the draw for WA subscribers in the first place. Most people who subscribe do so because of RP, and a few because of David Schildknecht. The other writers don't really register. Galloni and Martin occasionally get some decent space but I don't think they are heavyweights like RP and DS.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 27, 2009 11:16 pm

I think that whenever Parker posts something they crawl over each other to kiss his ass over there, it's pretty comical. "Talk to me, Mr. Parker. Talk to me!"

Not everyone, of course, I've seen people like rieslingfan and a few others actually dare to challenge him on occasion, but for the most part the sycophancy is pretty comical.

Overall I like Parker himself, though, I think he has a pretty good attitude. And I still think he's the best when it comes to Bordeaux notes.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Thu May 28, 2009 12:06 pm

Chris I think it is referred to as tall poppy syndrome in anglo-saxon countries

From Wiki:

Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) is a pejorative term used in Australia, New Zealand and Canada to describe what is seen as a populist, levelling social attitude. Someone is said to be a target of tall poppy syndrome when his or her assumption of a higher economic, social, or political position is criticised as being presumptuous, attention seeking, or without merit. Alternatively, it is seen as a societal phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are criticised or resented because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers.

Jim - when is your birthday? Because on the day I want to be the first person to start a thread wishing you a happy birthday

JEP_62 · Post by **JEP_62** » Thu May 28, 2009 12:13 pm

quote="JimHow"]And of course I don't mean every single person on the Squires site, just most of them. [/quote]

I don't even think it's most of the people, but the people on Squires board that are like that - post a lot. They post on a lot of threads and they post the same comments over and over within a thread. "If I say it enough, people will believe"

quote="DavidG"] Galloni and Martin occasionally get some decent space but I don't think they are heavyweights like RP and DS.[/quote]

I used to read Martin before he joined WA and I think I enjoy his writing and agree with his tastes more than RP. IMHO, it was easier for me to identify from Martin's notes which Bordeaux was a bit over the top or "new world" and I may not appreciate as much. I was pissed when he joined the WA and I no longer had access to his notes, but everyone has to make a living. If he started up his own publication, I would give it a shot.

I'm really not interested in subscribing to WA. I've never met RP and he may be completely different in person, but his holier than thou act on the boards and his band of disciples - just doesn't do anything for me.

Andy

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu May 28, 2009 12:46 pm

Andy, I think Neal Martin has recognizable palate preferences and is quite consistent in his notes, much as Parker is. To me, that makes him a reliable and useful critic. When I said he's not a heavyweight, I meant in terms of his ability to drive purchases and prices. I wasn't discounting his seriousness as a critic. But he just doesn't have the wide popular appeal of Parker, for whatever reason (right time/right place?, palate preferences that appeal to larger swaths of the wine-buying population?, etc.).

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 28, 2009 1:15 pm

Jim - when is your birthday? Because on the day I want to be the first person to start a thread wishing you a happy birthday

LOL

JEP_62 · Post by **JEP_62** » Thu May 28, 2009 4:57 pm

DavidG wrote:Andy, I think Neal Martin has recognizable palate preferences and is quite consistent in his notes, much as Parker is. To me, that makes him a reliable and useful critic. When I said he's not a heavyweight, I meant in terms of his ability to drive purchases and prices. I wasn't discounting his seriousness as a critic. But he just doesn't have the wide popular appeal of Parker, for whatever reason (right time/right place?, palate preferences that appeal to larger swaths of the wine-buying population?, etc.).

Got You. And Agree 100%

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:11 pm

Parker posted on ebob his letter to the WSJ:

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

ChrisW · Post by **ChrisW** » Thu May 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Wow!!!!

Parker is really serious about this ethical topic!

At least he considers the ethical credibility of the WA to be much more important than the protection of the reputation of Miller in public.

ChrisW

jal · Post by **jal** » Thu May 28, 2009 6:28 pm

This is like watching a plane about to crash, I just can't take my eyes off it.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu May 28, 2009 7:21 pm

The weasels are screeching full volume now:

From the Parker letter:

The WSJ story was a rehash of a story about Jay Miller and Mark Squires in the blogosphere a month earlier. I investigated it fully then ... This was not mentioned by the WSJ nor did you mention that I have also addressed all of these issues in a forthright, transparent and public manner on the eRobertParker.com Bulletin Board. They also did not report that I composed and publicly posted on eRobertParker.com the wine reviewer ethical standards.

From the WSJ story:

Mr. Parker didn't respond to interview requests. Messrs. Miller and Squires declined to comment.

When you refuse to give your side of the story, you can't complain when it isn't told.

jal · Post by **jal** » Thu May 28, 2009 7:51 pm

stefan wrote:Parker posted on ebob his letter to the WSJ:

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

That thread has been locked. Zere vill be no criticism!!

ChrisW · Post by **ChrisW** » Thu May 28, 2009 7:55 pm

Hound,

When you refuse to give your side of the story, you can't complain when it isn't told.

I do not completely agree with this since the journalist likely read the squires forum and found most of his information there. He just decided to ignore the first comments from Parker on that forum when he explained his ethical policy and doubts abouts whether miller's actions were completely in line with this policy, and that he would investigate the situation. Proper text book journalism would have led to the inclusion of these comments as otherwise the journalist would be willingly paint a somewhat biassed one-sided story.

This is all theory of course and proper journalism very often doesn't create interesting headlines and doesn't sell, making it a vitually extinct art.

In line with the decision of the journalist to leave out some info to make the story (even) more interesting, I do not think that in these situations it is always wise by the "accused" party to comment. A story with Parker' s or Squires' comments would have atracted even more attention and unlike with an interview, Parker or Squires could not have audited and approved the selected quotesand the context in which the were placed. Very likely, the writer would have just selected some interesting phrases and used them in such a way that they would not make the story less interesting (scandelous).

Just my opinion.

ChrisW

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:07 pm

Chris,

Had Parker granted an interview he could have directed the reporter to those web postings and completely nullified any potential bias in the story. And if the reporter then had omitted this material anyway to make the story more scandalous Parker's letter would now be about the lack of journalistic ethics at the WSJ not at the Wine Advocate.

ChrisW · Post by **ChrisW** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:24 pm

Hound,

Could be. One will never know because it is impossible to turn back the clock.

What I find most interesting is that if you see the thread on the Squires forum, it seems as though a seemingly open and honest "apology" and explanation by Parker on the matter has completely exploded in his face. Not too strange if it is real that they banned one of their most active members for being critical about a subject of which Parker admits that he takes it as a serious issue.

ChrisW

PS. I'm verry happy that we do not seem to have a Stalin-like dictatorship here since I'm still able to post even though I dared in a bold but perhaps too daring post (above) to question the disqualifying comments which our BD made towards members of the Squires forum. Seeing what happened to the poor, banned, critical person on the Squires forum I feel happy to be still alive

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:33 pm

For some reason all the self-deprecating types seem to congregate here. The stormtrooper types get bored and go elsewhere. Perhaps it's a framework for pacifism.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:36 pm

Chris, don't worry. Our idiot BD is used to being called an idiot.

stefan

jal · Post by **jal** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:37 pm

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 banishing Posner, Parker is dissing Asimov, as well as almost every ITB member of his community.
The affair is spiraling out of Parker's control at this point.

ChrisW · Post by **ChrisW** » Thu May 28, 2009 9:01 pm

Stefan: are you sure that you are still able/allowed to post on this forum following your comments?

Jal: I think that this is a perfect case which people can use for training people on damage control in mass media. This is clearly not the way to do it. I think that parker, squires and miller could have better taken a two-week holiday and not have said, written or done anything at all. The original offense, if any, was not really interesting but the soap story-like developments that now follow it make it much more interesting.

ChrisW

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu May 28, 2009 9:12 pm

Sure, Chris; no pro

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu May 28, 2009 9:13 pm

I think they got into trouble going on too many holidays (expenses paid) in the first place.

ChrisW · Post by **ChrisW** » Thu May 28, 2009 9:22 pm

by Houndsong on Thu May 28, 2009 10:13 pm

I think they got into trouble going on too many holidays (expenses paid) in the first place.

Sharp

Innocent me. I pay for all my holidays myself. Silly of me to think that the elite of the WA would also consider doing this

I still think it is more funny than serious. In my opinion the WA hasn't really lost any credibility, but I think that this also has a lot to do with that I mostly focus on the reviews of Parker himself and already took the reviews of Miller and Squires as much less valuable opinions.

ChrisW

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 28, 2009 9:51 pm

Ha Chris, this is the BWE way. We just don't censor. I just refuse to take any of this too seriously.

You are absolutely right, Parker should have just ignored the WSJ controversy. By responding to it he is just perpetuating the controversy. When I used to be involved in politics I always found that any negative press I got quickly blew over in 24 hour news cycles, and it was just best to not respond and let it die. If I responded with a letter or other statement it just perpetuated it longer than it would have otherwise.

I also think Squires has made a significant blunder in locking out criticism. Here on BWE my philosophy is to virtually never delete threads. If there is a thread that I feel uncomfortable about, I just let it run its course and it eventually peters out and gets buried beneath the first page of threads. To me that is much better than censoring opinions, because you just run into the problem that Squires is facing right now. I also believe strongly that, in the end, a hands-off approach helps to foster a less uptight site, I honestly feel it is a big part of the chemistry of the site. We had significant discussion about this issue with the assistant managers when we created this new site.