Wine Enthusiast Magazine
Subscribe
Disclosure—no, not the Demi Moore-Michael Douglas 1994 movie that made Pahlmeyer Chardonnay a star—is one of the buzzwords of the Internet age. Everyone wants it, and everyone seems to feel like they’re not always getting enough of it.
Today, rather than rattling on about what levels of disclosure I feel are appropriate in wine criticism/journalism, I want to know what levels of disclosure you, our readers, expect.
Here are several common instances that I hope might inspire you to comment.
- A critic attends a media/trade tasting.
- A critic receives free samples of wine from a producer/importer.
- A critic is hosted for a dinner/tasting by a producer/importer.
- A critic is hosted for a trip to a wine region.
Are there distinctions to be drawn depending on the market value? Does it matter what content the writer generates as a result, or should it all be reported to the public regardless? May a distinction be drawn between the critic and the publication? Finally, whatever expectations you might have, are those expectations realistic?
Filed under: Critics/Competitions, Industry Issues
4 Comments
August 24th, 2010 at 11:23:05 AM
Joe: I’ve seen so much of late on the disclosure issue. While I dismiss most of the outrage and anguish displayed, I realize the potential ethical problems it poses as well. What it comes down to for me is when I comment on a wine whether I feel it is germane to the mention of the wine . It’s a moot point in most cases since I am largely a “situational” or “contextual” observer: I purposely put the wine and my appreciation of it in the context of the moment (a tasting, blind tasting, a dinner, with friends, formal occasion, trade event, etc.).
I also select what I wish to write about, and don’t make a living from it—the old gentleman blogger syndrome, you might say—so whatever I enthuse over is a natural and personal enthusiasm, as opposed to a writer with projects and deadlines and editorial niceties. If I am not enthused over something, I usually don’t write about it at all; thus I never feel that commercial compulsion to gild lillies or inject steroidal praise pieces.
Lastly, I’ve been doing this so long, and from so many directions, that I now have the leisure of not being a “campaigning journalist” or investigative reporter when I’m writing about wine. That, in itself, is a wonderful liberation.
As to the disclosure by others…I’ve always felt I could tell the difference when reading whether someone was a paid hack versus a principled commentator, and if not, then I should either be reading closer or not at all. As a reader it is my obligation to read the critic as well as what he or she says about the wine; it’s all of a piece, the writer and the wine, and up to me to decipher.
As a mentor once said (speaking as a buyer of wine), “It’s important to remember that everyone has a bias; our responsibility is to factor that in when we make our decisions.” So a critical writer needs a critical reader. Looked at that way, all the disclosure one needs is the ability to read intelligently.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:07:48 PM
Love Hoke’s mentor comment…
September 16th, 2010 at 7:35:11 PM
Unlike Hoke, I think that a reviewer should always disclose whether he, or someone in his party, has paid for the wine being reviewed. Whether the reviewer knows it or not, he is much more likely to be critical of a wine if he bought it at retail for $100 than if he tastes the wine as the guest of a producer or distributor at an elegant dinner. I, too, can generally tell the difference between the work of a paid hack and a principled commentator. The information I seek helps me identify the unrecognized bias of the principled commentator who doesn’t realize that he has been seduced.
September 27th, 2010 at 9:02:08 AM
[...] [...]