Humor me, here...

WINE TALK
21

Dan,
I guess what I am getting at is that Neal’s work (I think) will not appear in print . . . or on-line, in the form of a TWA review, but rather as something for Wine Journal. For that reason perhaps he does have different standards? He is the only one, as you noted, who covers the whole world, and has his own veritable fiefdom inside the walled garden. It stands to reason then that there are different rules.

To your other point . . . and perhaps better one: do people care less because they like Neal and care more about situations involving Mark and Jay because they like them less? Probably. Yes.

22

According to Jamie Goode, Neal Martin’s business class ticket was paid for by Wines of New Zealand…

Just to clarify, Wines of New Zealand pay - Neal and I didn’t ask for business tickets, but it’s certainly nice to get them - it’s up to others to decide whether we are worth the outlay. It’s a gruelling flight either way because of the time zone shift, but much tougher in economy.

We’re not prima donnas, but I suspect that some journalists would refuse to fly economy - so what does WONZ do? Just fly the primadonna speakers to the conference business and put the others in economy?

So, Wines of New Zealand paid for Neal Martin to go to New Zealand…business as usual at the Wine Advocate.

John, based upon Robert Parker’s comments, Neal Martin’s reviews will appear.

Serge, how much Sauternes come here? I think more NZ wines do.

23

I don’t have a dog in this hunt and couldn’t care less whether they sent a G5 for him, much less seats in biz class, but Jamie Goode actually answers the “who paid” question directly in his reply to a comment to his blog: “…Just to clarify, Wines of New Zealand pay - Neal and I didn’t ask for business tickets, but it’s certainly nice to get them - it’s up to others to decide whether we are worth the outlay.”

Ok…now that’s settled …carry on with discussion of whether it is appropriate or not. [stirthepothal.gif]

24

I like Neal, I don’t like NZ wines, and don’t have much interest in this topic, except to say:

1.) If this is true – it shows how little Bob has learned about the impact that these trips have on the credibility of his brand
2.) The only way he will learn is if the MSM picks up stories like this when they occur, which it will only do if there is some level of buzz, which is what threads like this can potentially generate. As a customer, I applaud Dan’s efforts for bringing this issue to light.

It would be great if the policies of the WA were as transparent as the New Zealand pinot noirs they are so eager to review.


ps - Given that wine writers don’t typically receive billion dollar bonuses, and that New Zealand is a heck of a long flight from London, I think we should be a little bit understanding of Neal’s position here. I wouldn’t fly coach for business to New Zealand, and I wouldn’t pay for a business class seat on my own dime.

25

Serge - this issue isn’t NZ wines or even Neal. It’s 1) disclosure and 2) the tension between TWA’s ‘we only answer to subscribers’ assertion and the realities of wine reviewing in a global setting. I think that disclosure is a must. If Neal posts about the trip on any TWA owned property he should disclose that the trip was paid for by WONZ. That’s enough. Readers can then account for that as they please.

As for speaking, being flown to places and put up etc… I think we all need to realize that this happens and that, as long as it’s disclosed, we can account for it. I do think that critics need to balance the desire to do trips that they might not otherwise be able to justify from a business perspective or to speak to an organization with being an independent critic, but readers also need to be willing to recognize that they benefit from such trips. In this specific case for example, Neal will be able to visit NZ and report on things he would not otherwise do at all perhaps. If his readers trust him to be straight with them, I think it’s a net gain for Neal, TWA and the readers. It’s when people aren’t transparent about these things that we start to question their credibility and how far we can trust them.

PS: Just to be clear, I posted the 2nd para above after Posner posted below… full disclosure ya know :slight_smile:

26

[welldone.gif] Rick!

Look at what has been said and relook at Parker’s quote…


As for the independent writers I have hired to cover certain areas, they are held to high but less stringent and demanding standards only with respect to accepting educational travel and hospitality to emerging wine regions. Complimentary travel is ONLY permitted when these educational trips are sponsored by the government and not a wine industry group…Moreover, I require full disclosure of such hospitality they receive in the articles that emanate from these trips.-Robert Parker

What has changed at the Wine Advocate besides me getting banned so I am unable to post this over there?

Do we just put our heads back in the sand? [berserker.gif]

27

At last we get to the heart of the matter! [neener.gif]

28

I need a photoshop class. neener

29

NZ business class has a great reputation in certain circles. [wink.gif]

30

Serge,

That’s why I started my first post above with the caveat that I don’t care that much about this specific situation - I don’t subscribe to TWA (or any critic) so this isn’t a personal thing to me. Rather, it’s intellectual - what’s the responsibility of critics at large? What’s the responsibility of readers? etc… I certainly don’t expect Parker to change anything - but that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it while drinking our favorite beverage.

31

Serge, in a vacuum, this is a great strategy, unfortunately we do not live in one, although you might, as we have never met.

As for option 3…it should read “Make sure the Wine Advocate, as a private enterprise, is honest in how it conducts its business.”

Again, it is impossible for me to ignore WA scores, as some critics there are powerful in the industry, and I even respect some of them.

I have already ignored Jay Miller reviews and have urged my clients to do the same. I wish more retailers would take more of a stance with critics that they do not trust, etc.

Then again, I recently saw one retailer give out 97 points to 2007 Alto Moncayo…so should we trust that retailer?

I got this from a client today…

Which one is accurate?
Raynolds: “…from a single-estate vineyard planted to 60% Garnacha, with the remainder Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Syrah, and Carinena…”
Miller: “The 2006 Finca Dofi is 55% Garnacha and 45% Carinena from estate vines ranging in age…”
Should I just assume Miller is a douche and usually wrong?

Well, the answer is here…
Cut and pasted from the Rare Wine Company website:

Finca Dofí. Finca Dofí is a blend of Garnacha, Cabernet, Merlot, Syrah and Cariñena. Like L’Ermita, Dofí combines power and richness with great breeding and finesse. In most Priorat tastings that do not include L’Ermita, Dofí is the clear winner.

32

Or 3rd grade caligraphy [tease.gif]

33

Dan, what seat is he in?

34

So, Serge, you condone lying, if it means advancing your business, so long as it is a private enterprise?

35

Dan et al…

For the record - Mark Squires very first invitation to visit Israel (the one that brought about so much condemnation) came from Israel’s Ministry of Trade and Agriculture, specifically from the Export Institute which is most assuredly a governmental body.

As to flying business class, a great many journalists fly largely on the account of their publishers and, even though the publisher pays for the tickets it is the journalist who receives the frequent flyer mileage credits. In my own case for example, I have so many frequent flyer miles that I can always get upgraded to business or first. Sometimes at their airport, because they know me, they don’t even charge me my points. I see no moral contradiction in that and it inspires not the least feeling of guilt.

Why in the world anyone think that giving a lecture or taking part in a panel at a conference might corrupt a critic? I have been at conferences at which I have blasted the policy of the sponsoring body. And oddly enough, nobody hated me afterwards. More than that, if the best critics cannot take part in such events who in the world would present the critical point of view?

As to this particular conference, it seems that Mr. Martin is in some pretty good company. As to your comment (Dan) that you see Neal flying everyplace…do you expect him to walk?..to travel by boat?..or not to go anyplace at which he might be able to taste wines, learn, etc?

Best
Rogov

P.S. I have met Mark Squires only twice and only in passing. I have never met Mr. Martin.

36

Well played, sir.

37

Daniel,

Thanks for posting. No surprise. You find yourslef on all of these threads.

FYI, the trip I referred to re: Squires was his trips to Portugal. Not Israel.

But, in the end, you have missed the big picture…I have not adopted these policies…The Wine Advocate has. Remember?

38

Dan, Hi…

With all due respect, I think it is you and not I who is missing the “big picture”. You imply, simply by asking, that Mr Martin has violated the code of the Wine Advocate. Not quite fair. Something akin to my wondering aloud if someone has stopped beating his mother and then demanding only a “yes” or a “no” as his response.

I do, by the way, believe that you and I would get along far better in person than we do in cyberspace.

Best
Rogov

39

Incorrect. Your statement should read that the Wine Advocate claims to have adopted these policies. neener

40

And apparently people with some strange axe to grind…is this like the 10th thread on this subject??

Again- who cares.