here is the Dr. Vino blog - at the bottom, Leslie and Evan have a professional back and forth.
She was disingenuous and got caught - sell your book, sell your wine, sell yourself and take advantage of an incredibly confusing topic for the average public
Great stuff on the comments section. I’m particularly annoyed, however, with Leslie’s comment that she understood that the media company would be revealing that this was a tour underwritten by a wine company. Where, exactly, would they ‘reveal’ this information in a 2 minute spot on the local news, Leslie? Frustrating.
Nice topic ! And reminiscent of so many related events where the true connection lies within the fine print few ordinarily pay much attention to (or in this case Sbrocco’s website, where she claims that full disclosure is plain as day). Who knew ?
Sorry about the dup post, can they be merged. Actually, I have less of a problem with Leslie than I do the reporter. He obviously knew the answer to the question. Even if he did not know, he could have asked/disclosed it BEFORE the interview started. Why embarrass her? I would have stumbled also with such a question. How does one say in a world of sound bites that while their tour is sponsored , their recommendations remain unbiased. I feel sorry for her. Lets keep in mind that most people promoting education and consumption of wine could not do so without sponsors (GrapeRadio included). That does not necessarily imply one has been “bought”.
Actually, Jay, you raise a good point. While I can’t say I will switch my position, I now will alter my belief a bit and see them both at fault. Her for pretending that she was acting as if there was clear indication of the sponsorship (turning a blind eye), and him for, rather than disclosing it during the introduction, i.e. ‘Leslie Sbracco, on a media tour sponsored by Beringer…’, calling her out as he did, creating a possibly purposeful shock in doing so.
I still find Dawson’s inquiry very apt and apparently the TV station’s regular policy when the posed question had not been answered beforehand. FULL disclosure isn’t rocket science. It’s what people like Posner have been requesting for quite awhile.
Jay, good point. I still this it was fair to ask and Dawson was clearly professional in tone and phrasing. I see what you mean though. Thanks for making me think.
You really hit the nail on the head. Some producer booked her onto the show and knew enough to alert the interviewer that she represented the distributor so they could make a disclosure. But no one seemed to recognize that this is basically free advertising. What were they thinking to begin with?! (Oh, right, it’s local TV. I forgot. They’re supposed to be cheesy.)
The person who really ought to be pissed is the owner of the station, who should have collected some ad revenue!
Is this Evan Dawson the same Evan Dawson who appeared to be called out by John Z in this past summer’s infamous Finger Lakes meltdown? I think so. Wow.
I agree, his written responses were very eloquent, highly logical etc. I think he was going for a little ‘shock’ during the interview, but I can’t really fault his logic. When I read Jamie’s response on the other board I was predisposed to feel like Leslie had been ‘victimized’ a bit, but the more I think about it the less sympathy I feel. Full, pro-active disclosure does seem like the only winning policy.
The way he said in the “the interest of full disclosure” and then made it clear he discloses his relationship with the Finger Lakes and is more likely to recommend the wines. He then follows it up with his question to her. Almost as if look I am honest … are you? Who here believes he did not know the correct answer?
Jay, I think he may well have been grandstanding … but his written logic and eloquence are undeniable. And this likely could have been avoided had Leslie been very proactive with disclosure. Who do you fault more, her for putting herself in an awkward situation or him for choosing to pounce on it?