Maybe if they try constant interaction rather than random flying in from the heavens to make comments it would work out better. There are good examples of that here already.
Have you heard of this Internet thing? People feel entitled to criticize or comment on every thing under the sun, whether or not they have any knowledge on the subject. The object of the criticism can choose to respond or not; depending on the circumstances, there are legitimate reasons for either choice. At least this is a real names board, so there is some degree of accountability.
And just to be clear, this is a post criticizing people who criticize people who criticize for a living . . .
1 Like
Exactly why I approached the OP from the perspective of the critic. Most of it is just gadfly garbage not worth their time or effort. If it crosses the line into libel, go after them hard.
Itās critic Inception.
Or maybe Being James Suckling.
shudder
1 Like
To me, the line falls between (1) I donāt agree with Critic A about Wine X, I think A is rating it too high or too low, and (2) Critic A is rating Wine X too high or too low because of payola, advertising or not advertising in Critic Aās publication, some personal vendetta, and things like that.
(1) is obviously fair game at all times, and a critic ought to welcome that kind of discussion.
(2) seems unfair and unnecessary, unless the person making the accusation has some real information to bolster it. And my guess is they very rarely, if ever, do. I donāt mean that it needs to end up in court or anything, just that itās wrong.
But this tracks a broader trend on internet, cable news, and online discussion. Political debate is now very rarely āI oppose this policy because it has downsides X, Y and Z, which are greater than the benefits A and B.ā Itās āI oppose this policy because the people pushing it are bad people with bad intentions (theyāre racists, they hate America, theyāre on the take from these nefarious groups, whatever).ā You donāt watch and read news to learn about the pros and cons of policy anymore, you watch it today to learn about what terrible people the people on the other side of the issue or in the other political party are.
And that bleeds into even relatively unimportant stuff like discussions about wine and sports. Itās so blithe and common to say āWine Spectator rates wines higher if they advertise in the magazineā or āwineries I donāt like secretly put syrah and Mega Purple in their pinotā that it hardly gets any pushback, at least from anyone besides me, even though Iāve never seen a shred of evidence to support either claim.
This board is better than 99.9% of discussion out there in the world, partly because that kind of stuff is fortunately pretty rare around here. I would just encourage us to keep resisting that trend. Really in all phases of our lives and on all topics, but if thatās an absurdly unrealistic thing to ask in the year 2021, then at least in our wine conversations.
4 Likes
Oh sure, and next we should ban people from complaining about umpiresā¦
1 Like
Well, everybody knows that baseball umpires are almost willfully corrupt, thinking they each have the right to create their own strike zone. And thereās no recourse, because in baseball, according to the rules, the reality is what the umpire says it is. Itās complete totalitarian injustice.
This is unfortunately so true. I have lamented this for a long time in our political discourse. I guess it bothers me less in wine criticism because the stakes are so much lower (ahem, sorry!). But I think you are spot on here on the connection and common phenomenon.
1 Like
IMHO itās valuable for us - wine lovers, to hear the critic approach out of his technical review, and answering questions of any kind.
In our cozy little world of wine the critic can be quite influential.
Wine criticism is also a field where ethical pitfalls exist, and where many of the players employ dubious methodologies.
Seems that a little bit of the watchdog spirit is advisable.
I certainly agree that people should be very careful with their words, particularly careful not to make accusations of bad faith that cannot be substantiated.
But valid criticisms are welcome. And it is even better when critics respond and provide their perspectives.
1 Like
What now?
1 Like
Umbrage at the general breakdown in respecting anointed authorities?
He got nasty first. Hyper-active censorship of any post that dissented on any of his ratings or drinking windows, and quite a few legitimate wine topics were out-of-bounds. You couldnāt even post something critical of his arch enemy Alice Fiering, presumably because any attention, even negative, drew eyes to what she was saying. He banned users for mild comments they made on other forums. People got upset at the censorship and the insults, and took it as a challenge.
1 Like
If your job is to criticize others work and you canāt take criticism yourself then you are in the wrong line of work.
No one should accuse an individual of being unethical, with out evidence to back it up. But Critics as a group are no better then any other profession and there have been several bad actors who have taken advantage and been unethical over the years. These incidents are well documented within the wine trade.
It speaks highly of the Critics who come here and have an honest dialog with the consumers of their product. It shows an openness to hearing how to better serve their readership. But it does mean they have to face criticism themselves, some of it unfair.
Berserkers are no better then anyone else in that respect.
I remember reading years later in Alice Feiringās book how hurt she was when she was excommunicated from the chat board.
Do you mind sharing the details of those incidents? I vaguely recall some kerfuffle about some critic going on a trip or vacation with some winery owner or importer, but thatās the only incident I can remember that seemed to have any plausible evidence behind it.
But certainly there may be others and I just didnāt know about them or donāt remember them
Anyway, since you said in your own words that nobody should make ethics accusations without evidence, Iām interested to hear the support for your statement. Thanks.
There were some writers in the 90ās and 00ās who extorted trips and very expensive dining experiences from wineries and importers to just get there wines tasted and maybe written about. When it became likely that these things may become public these people were quietly removed.
To be clear I am not accusing anyone of anything, just that it has happened, so to act like the profession is above reproach and there for scrutiny, is at best naive.
And donāt forget all of the writers and ābloggersā who continue to get āfree junketsā to travel around the US and world to visit wine producing countries in return for āwrite upsā of these excursions . . .