I read an interesting article by Tim Atkin in Off Licence News regarding junkets and wine critics, and inadvertently it has led me to having a rant. He asks the question if it is possible for a wine writer to be totally impartial if he is being wined and dined by a producer, and also if it is possible to be a fair judge of a product if you have never seen where it is produced. It is what I have called “The Retsina effect”
As you will by now know, I run a wine shop, and every year, from the middle of the summer onwards we get requests for Retsina. This horrific drink, a combination of wine and pine resin, is demanded by customers as “a fantastic wine I tried when I was in Greece”. And of course it was! They were sitting on a beach, surrounded by half naked attractive people sipping this ice cold beverage having a wonderful time. They could have drunk bleach and it would still be the most wonderful drink on earth. But what they are remembering is the whole experience, not just the wine. So I sell them a bottle, Retsina, not bleach, they take it home and drink it and find out the truth, that it is a hateful drink and that they would have been better with a bottle of Domestos. While we like to think we are professional enough to rise above it, people who comment on wines or retail them are not immune to the Retsina effect, and nor should we be.
The Retsina effect is why retailers and journalists are given all expenses paid trips, because the producer or distributor wants us to visit the places the wines are made, meet the people who make the wine, have a nice holiday, trying wonderful wines and then go back home and write about them favourably or stock them in their shops. They know they are trying to influence their guests, their guests know that they are being played, and as long as you recognise that, there is no problem. If you are serious about your job, you can compensate for the schmooze factor in and be objective, and if you can’t, just own up to the fact that you went on a junket and tell the truth in your article, or ask for a sample from your supplier to try when you get home before you order half a pallet worth of stock.
Atkin mentions Robert Parker, who set the ethical standard by which critics are judged, but that standard is now, thanks to RP, beyond most people in the trade. Only an independently wealthy critic could afford to adhere to Parker's “no hospitality” rules and any retailer would soon be out of business if he had to fund every trip he went on.
I decided to analyse the freebies I’d received over the years and see if they have been influenced me in any way. And of course they have, I wouldn’t be human if they hadn’t. I have a particular fondness for some producers I’ve visited, have great memories and have, as a result, been somewhat influenced in choosing their brand over another when recommending or purchasing (for personal use) wines. I’ve also promoted their brands in a small way on this website when I have written about them. What these trips have never done, like Atkin, is influenced my opinion on their wines.
But Parker would argue that I, and Tim Atkin, have been influenced and have come up with a conclusion about a wine that is tarnished and therefore not 100% unbiased, all because of a freebie. My counter argument would be simply this:
Everyone is influenced and everyone is bias when tasting wine, even Robert Parker. He can try wines in the most clinical of surroundings, stand on his moral high horse and say that he has paid for everything and that his judgement is ethically sound. But what if he was starting to get a cold and his senses were slightly off par? What if he had an argument with someone that morning and was in a bad mood? What if he’d just had some great sex and was in a fantastic mood? These influences, irrespective of the fact that they have nothing to do with wine tasting or freebies, could influence his tasting abilities, either negatively or positively, and therefore, due to his overwhelming influence, make or break a winery! And what makes this ‘flawed’ opinion any more valid than my ‘flawed’ opinion just because I got a free trip to Italy?
Similarly his personal preferred style of wine is very biased towards more simple, fuller styles of wine, and therefore both 100% correct and 100% wrong. His desired style of wine is not always my cup of tea, but I’d never dream to say it is wrong, even when it is totally obvious that he is! But even this is not a problem I have with Parker. The problem I have is the arrogant attitude that leads the reader of his “standards” to think he is the only perfect taster.
Parker claims to be the “One True Voice of the Wine Consumer”. We could argue whether that is ego or a marketing line till the end of time, the fact is he has become the one voice that everyone listens to. He may insist that these comments are just his own and that people should decide what their palate is like rather than take his word as gospel, but every writer, yours truly included, says that! But if you really believe that your views are purely personal, you should not claim to be “the one true voice” of anything, let alone the “wine consumer” who you have directly led certain wines to be taken away from and into the hands of investors.
He also says, on his website, “on occasions, I have accepted invitations to lunch with a producer, but have never had any problem criticizing that producer if his wines are not up to standard”. There, by his own admission, makes his whole claim to be unbiased, total hogwash or exceedingly arrogant. Feel free to choose for yourself. If it is ok for him to have lunch with a producer once every five years and then comment on their wines, considering himself beyond any corruption, who the hell does he think he is to have the opinion that a different critic would not be able to make a similar claim, even if they have dinner with a producer once every five days?
Going on, he says he keeps control of his writers by buying bottles of highly regarded wines to check for “accuracy”! Accuracy in what? Whether an individual liked a wine or not? We all know the ongoing disagreement between Parker and Jancis Robinson, and reading through the American’s notes and those of Michael Broadbent, you also see a marked difference in preferred styles, so why shouldn’t those people on his payroll also disagree with him? Oh, that’s why! They are on his payroll and you aren’t allowed to disagree with the boss in a dictatorial state. Just look at Burma... or Iran…
Wine is all about personal opinion and wine writers, like the wines we try, are not perfect. Tasters all have their idiosyncrasies and they all have their personalities and not one of us is 100% immune from outside influences, be them positive or negative. Parker’s claims to be neutral from any ethical influence are, at best, tenuous, as, even if he does pay for most of the things he comments on, by his own admission, he receives free samples and the occasional lunch. So his arguement for being the people's champion, purely comes down to the fact that he thinks that critics and retailers who get the occasional freebie can’t form a clear, unbiased opinion, and he can.
Which is codswallop.
And arrogant.
We are in a time where perks are being scorned upon because a load of MP’s are on the fiddle, and if a free trip to Islay or a night at Chateau Saran is going to be viewed as buying my reviews of Ardbeg or Moet & Chandon, then so be it. I have been bought. The 1978 Moet is lovely (not available commercially) and the 1974 Ardbeg was delicious (hideously expensive). Oh, and 2003 Moet Rose sucks and Ardbeg Blasda is pointless and they are both available on a shop shelf near you. Just thought I’d level out the scorecard for Mr Parker...
As you will by now know, I run a wine shop, and every year, from the middle of the summer onwards we get requests for Retsina. This horrific drink, a combination of wine and pine resin, is demanded by customers as “a fantastic wine I tried when I was in Greece”. And of course it was! They were sitting on a beach, surrounded by half naked attractive people sipping this ice cold beverage having a wonderful time. They could have drunk bleach and it would still be the most wonderful drink on earth. But what they are remembering is the whole experience, not just the wine. So I sell them a bottle, Retsina, not bleach, they take it home and drink it and find out the truth, that it is a hateful drink and that they would have been better with a bottle of Domestos. While we like to think we are professional enough to rise above it, people who comment on wines or retail them are not immune to the Retsina effect, and nor should we be.
The Retsina effect is why retailers and journalists are given all expenses paid trips, because the producer or distributor wants us to visit the places the wines are made, meet the people who make the wine, have a nice holiday, trying wonderful wines and then go back home and write about them favourably or stock them in their shops. They know they are trying to influence their guests, their guests know that they are being played, and as long as you recognise that, there is no problem. If you are serious about your job, you can compensate for the schmooze factor in and be objective, and if you can’t, just own up to the fact that you went on a junket and tell the truth in your article, or ask for a sample from your supplier to try when you get home before you order half a pallet worth of stock.
Atkin mentions Robert Parker, who set the ethical standard by which critics are judged, but that standard is now, thanks to RP, beyond most people in the trade. Only an independently wealthy critic could afford to adhere to Parker's “no hospitality” rules and any retailer would soon be out of business if he had to fund every trip he went on.
I decided to analyse the freebies I’d received over the years and see if they have been influenced me in any way. And of course they have, I wouldn’t be human if they hadn’t. I have a particular fondness for some producers I’ve visited, have great memories and have, as a result, been somewhat influenced in choosing their brand over another when recommending or purchasing (for personal use) wines. I’ve also promoted their brands in a small way on this website when I have written about them. What these trips have never done, like Atkin, is influenced my opinion on their wines.
But Parker would argue that I, and Tim Atkin, have been influenced and have come up with a conclusion about a wine that is tarnished and therefore not 100% unbiased, all because of a freebie. My counter argument would be simply this:
Everyone is influenced and everyone is bias when tasting wine, even Robert Parker. He can try wines in the most clinical of surroundings, stand on his moral high horse and say that he has paid for everything and that his judgement is ethically sound. But what if he was starting to get a cold and his senses were slightly off par? What if he had an argument with someone that morning and was in a bad mood? What if he’d just had some great sex and was in a fantastic mood? These influences, irrespective of the fact that they have nothing to do with wine tasting or freebies, could influence his tasting abilities, either negatively or positively, and therefore, due to his overwhelming influence, make or break a winery! And what makes this ‘flawed’ opinion any more valid than my ‘flawed’ opinion just because I got a free trip to Italy?
Similarly his personal preferred style of wine is very biased towards more simple, fuller styles of wine, and therefore both 100% correct and 100% wrong. His desired style of wine is not always my cup of tea, but I’d never dream to say it is wrong, even when it is totally obvious that he is! But even this is not a problem I have with Parker. The problem I have is the arrogant attitude that leads the reader of his “standards” to think he is the only perfect taster.
Parker claims to be the “One True Voice of the Wine Consumer”. We could argue whether that is ego or a marketing line till the end of time, the fact is he has become the one voice that everyone listens to. He may insist that these comments are just his own and that people should decide what their palate is like rather than take his word as gospel, but every writer, yours truly included, says that! But if you really believe that your views are purely personal, you should not claim to be “the one true voice” of anything, let alone the “wine consumer” who you have directly led certain wines to be taken away from and into the hands of investors.
He also says, on his website, “on occasions, I have accepted invitations to lunch with a producer, but have never had any problem criticizing that producer if his wines are not up to standard”. There, by his own admission, makes his whole claim to be unbiased, total hogwash or exceedingly arrogant. Feel free to choose for yourself. If it is ok for him to have lunch with a producer once every five years and then comment on their wines, considering himself beyond any corruption, who the hell does he think he is to have the opinion that a different critic would not be able to make a similar claim, even if they have dinner with a producer once every five days?
Going on, he says he keeps control of his writers by buying bottles of highly regarded wines to check for “accuracy”! Accuracy in what? Whether an individual liked a wine or not? We all know the ongoing disagreement between Parker and Jancis Robinson, and reading through the American’s notes and those of Michael Broadbent, you also see a marked difference in preferred styles, so why shouldn’t those people on his payroll also disagree with him? Oh, that’s why! They are on his payroll and you aren’t allowed to disagree with the boss in a dictatorial state. Just look at Burma... or Iran…
Wine is all about personal opinion and wine writers, like the wines we try, are not perfect. Tasters all have their idiosyncrasies and they all have their personalities and not one of us is 100% immune from outside influences, be them positive or negative. Parker’s claims to be neutral from any ethical influence are, at best, tenuous, as, even if he does pay for most of the things he comments on, by his own admission, he receives free samples and the occasional lunch. So his arguement for being the people's champion, purely comes down to the fact that he thinks that critics and retailers who get the occasional freebie can’t form a clear, unbiased opinion, and he can.
Which is codswallop.
And arrogant.
We are in a time where perks are being scorned upon because a load of MP’s are on the fiddle, and if a free trip to Islay or a night at Chateau Saran is going to be viewed as buying my reviews of Ardbeg or Moet & Chandon, then so be it. I have been bought. The 1978 Moet is lovely (not available commercially) and the 1974 Ardbeg was delicious (hideously expensive). Oh, and 2003 Moet Rose sucks and Ardbeg Blasda is pointless and they are both available on a shop shelf near you. Just thought I’d level out the scorecard for Mr Parker...
Comments