WSJ on Wine Advocate and the travel/ethics issue

I think you overestimate Parker.

Agreed

Just look how hw attacked WSJ and then edited his post.

[David M. Bueker]

Not just edited - completely deleted the evidence.

On another topic, anybody else think it rather peculiar to be critiquing a good "friend"s wine. Never mind the houseboat; one is asking rather a lot to expect Mr. Miller to write that any Grateful Palate wines suck. I don't think there is a possibility of writing for the Advocate and scoring your good buddy's wines.

Personally I have no real problem with sponsored trips, if it is disclosed. I have no problem with non-blind tasting- if you don't claim to taste blind whenever possible. I do think that it is truly impossible for anyone to critically review a close friend's wines without bias (conscious or unconscious), you should simply recuse yourself. Parker used to do the entire Australia review- couldn't he (or David S or Galloni or Martin or even Squires -or how about the woman MW hired for Asia forum?) do the Dan Phillips wines? Parker et al seem to be totally blind to the possibility of unconscious bias, which is far more of a concern that actual corruption.

I think it is ridiculous that Parker states that it is "imperative" to not take travel or lodging, and then says it's ok for the "independent contractors." His definition of imperative is different from mine.

While I didn't always agree with Parker, I used to have the utmost respect for him. I thought him opinionated but rather idealistic, and full of integrity. But I must say my opinion has shifted in the last few years, mostly because of his own posts on the Squires board. Hubris, petty, egotistical, and mean-spirited are the terms that seem to spring to my mind when reading his posts. When questioned, he simply goes on attack. I don't think he is corrupt in any monetary sense, but I do think he has lost a normal sense of humility.

Very well put, Dale.

I do think that it is truly impossible for anyone to critically review a close friend's wines without bias (conscious or unconscious),

Somewhat of a left turn but I have always felt that there is a sense of bias in every review. My favorite acknowledgement of such bias is the Wine Spectator note of tasted twice with consistent results. Considering the way that WS says the tastings are conducted why does one need such a note when a wine scores well. I understand it if one is noting a flawed wine but since most of the lower scoring wines are never reported the note is most often seen on a wine with a high score. To me this acknowledges that once the wine was revealed the natural bias of the taster assumed that it must have been a mistake and hence the wine was retasted. I don't recall ever seeing that note on a Latour.

Matt,

Don't underestimate his being asked to keep things under control.

David
An interesting suggestion. I don't know the people personally, nor do I have the insight you'll have into their wine forum personas / attitudes. Over the years Squires has gained the reputation for being a faithful hound to Parker, but it's difficult for me to see who's calling most of the shots on that forum. If anything I'd have them both down as a similar nature, focused 1st and foremost on an overly vigourous defence of 'Brand Parker'. Indeed this links to Dale's insightful comments on how Parker has become someone, that back in the 1980's, he would have railed against.
regards
Ian

[David M. Bueker]

As a long time poster on what was once solely Mark Squires' Bulletin Board and is now the eBob board, I have seen a conspicuous shift in how issues are handled that might reflect poorly on the current host. It should be no surprise that the shift happened a little while after the merger.

Dale's comments are indeed spot on. Galloni and Schildknecht seem able to avoid controversy when they post. Of course in the case of David that might be due to the density of his prose. He could manage to insult us all and we would never know it. Somehow when Parker posts it comes off as incredibly self-serving or, in the case of disagreements, mean. Maybe there's a deep seated human hatred of ellipses.

Indeed this links to Dale's insightful comments on how Parker has become someone, that back in the 1980's, he would have railed against.

Credit for that insight actually goes to Matt R.

As to the WS "retasted with similar notes": I haven't subscribed to WS in many years, except a year where Zachys gave me one (and I just used 900 miles for a subscription on an airline I never fly and will never have enough to use otherwise). But I've read quite a few, the times I remember seeing it has generally been when a higher end wine got a dramatically low score (the 01 Montelena, etc). My guess is they retaste when something seems out of expectations. Overall that seems to be a fairly practical/pragmatic approach. Years ago someone on another forum reported doing an analysis of WS scores vs advertisers. IIRC, he found no bias favoring advertisers in general, but a small but significant difference in advertisers were more likely to have wines retasted if initial scores were low. This was on WCWN probably 8 or 9 years ago, but don't think posts are saved there. I'll see if I can find reference/

Can't find on WCWN, but found my own 2004 usenet post that includes some of Jon's conclusions:

This comes up periodically. I'm no fan of WS. I don't like panel tastings (no
one to "calibrate" to), I don't think that Suckling or Mansson (sp?) match my
tastes very well, etc. I don't subscribe, though I did in my more innocent
years, and have long list of
problems I could name with the "Speculator". But while I've often heard the
complaint that they trade points for ads, I've never seen anyone try and really
analyze it, except Jon Reuter.
Jon, a poster on WCWN who is apparently a statistician(he was a
frequent and respected poster who has no apparent connection to WS) posted this
a couple years ago:
"I've actually done a fairly technical (and therefore boring) review of WS
advertising and ratings (using WA ratings as a sort of control group) and found
only a slight bias at WS. For the majority of wines, the WS and WA ratings are
statistically indistiguishable. However, it does appear that WS is more likely
to retaste wines from advertisers and that these wines as a group benefit from
being retasted (to the tune of 2-3 points). To put that effect in context
though, less than 5 percent of wines are retasted so the overall average bias
is quite small.
Furthermore, conditional on price, production, and actual WS rating, there does
not appear to be any bias in who receives the various awards. So the earlier
post by a former WSer claiming that advertising and awards are unrelated
appears to be dead on."
There was a disclaimer that he only did the analysis for US wines for a 3 year
period I believe.
Of course, an extended analysis AFTER a winery scores high would probably show
a bigger correlation, because if WS scored one's wine a 94 wouldn't you think
of advertising there to remind readers once that issue has passed?
Now, the entry level restaurant awards are another thing. Pretty much any
restaurant that pays the $100 fee gets an award (602 out of 763 first time
entrants according to their own website).

My guess is they retaste when something seems out of expectations.

I agree that this is when they do it but the fact that some bottles fall outside of expectations in what is suppose to be a bias eliminating setting shows that the bias does exists. What I have always wondered is how many other bottles are tasted twice without consistent results and then which notes/score is printed, the initial impression or the retaste.

Not arguing if it is or is not prudent. Just that this is another example of bias. I don't believe bias can be eliminated and a reader should always assume that there could be some bias behind every note one reads.

The next question is do bias build more strongly over time or do they weaken?

While I didn't always agree with Parker, I used to have the utmost respect for him. I thought him opinionated but rather idealistic, and full of integrity. But I must say my opinion has shifted in the last few years, mostly because of his own posts on the Squires board. Hubris, petty, egotistical, and mean-spirited are the terms that seem to spring to my mind when reading his posts. When questioned, he simply goes on attack. I don't think he is corrupt in any monetary sense, but I do think he has lost a normal sense of humility.

Hmmmm....R&G = "low-brow Cotes du Rhone" , for some reason, popped into my mind.
Tom

[David M. Bueker]

Forgetting the note written in the print magazine, his on-line defense of the "low brow" note was one of the most egregious examples of the petty, mean attitude that Dale cites in his post. Consider that the only justification Parker offered for his note was that he was Parker & therefore was right, and that he was going to drink some fabulous wines (and we weren't).

I also avoid any serious friendships with wine producers. There is one exception, and he knows I will never review his wines. Relations should be friendly, but not close. I remember a journalist coming to Bordeaux for the first time. He was very excited, I had introduced him to a few people, and now he wanted to taste with me and his "good friend", an owner of a major estate. Unfortunately, the owner was busy and the poor journalist was embarrassed and felt he had lost face. I am sure it did not affect his notes, but I think he now understands that friendships, far from helping, prevents you from doing your job properly.

The only way to avoid bias is to taste blind and then write the tasting note. But...I prefer to taste open.

Blind does lead to problems which to me are worse than any possible bias. An easy example: Cheval Blanc in barrel rarely if ever shows well. No other wine that I know improves so much after the initial tasting. Within a year, it takes on much more weight and is much more intense than en primeur. I know this, I have experienced this, and also have got it wrong a couple of times (notably the 1998.) Now I have learned not to score it, and wait until the wine is tasted the second year. That kind of experience/bias for me is I think more valuable to the reader than notes done semi blind without context.


But to be objective is always going to be tough, and returning to the original theme, being objective with your "friend's" wines is almost impossible.

Hmmmm....R&G = "low-brow Cotes du Rhone" , for some reason, popped into my mind.

Yes, Tom, the ESJ comments were some of the ones that popped into my mind. It's fine to dislike wines, but that seemed petty and mean (not to mention inaccurate). Another instance was the reviews on the Valtellinas that Wine Expo sent. I predicted before he tasted them that he would shoot them down, because otherwise his categorical condemnation would be wrong. Even I was surprised how he apparently revelled in coming up with dirty descriptors. I find it very hard to believe they were tasted with an open mind (though I doubt he would like them double blind either).

[David M. Bueker]

The Valtellina issue is a tricky one for me. I stopped by Wine Expo one day to grab some bottles while on a business trip. I aksed the proprietor (Roberto) to sell me a bottle of the "best" Valtellina he had available. The wine sucked. It completely sucked. It was rough, tannic, drying, stewed and just no fun to drink with our without food. I subsequently ran through a mixed half case of wines that Roberto picked out for me, and there was not a one that was more than barely drinkable. It was a pretty awful experience.

Mark, I respect your opinion as a professional taster and it pulls great weight with me. As a consumer/reader however I believe that the benefits of blind tasting might outweigh the negatives.

OTOH, most wines from higher profile regions (US Cab, Bordeaux, Burg etc) are tasted more than once. Why not do both? One tasting would be non-blind--I gather that many tastings in groups in the wine region or at the chateau would be impossible to conduct blind--and another later tasting could be conducted blind. Both impressions could then be considered when a score and note are written.

The Valtellina issue is a tricky one for me. I stopped by Wine Expo one day to grab some bottles while on a business trip. I aksed the proprietor (Roberto) to sell me a bottle of the "best" Valtellina he had available. The wine sucked. It completely sucked. It was rough, tannic, drying, stewed and just no fun to drink with our without food. I subsequently ran through a mixed half case of wines that Roberto picked out for me, and there was not a one that was more than barely drinkable. It was a pretty awful experience.

David,
as I said, I didn't expect Parker to like them, and don't think he'd generally care for them (the Sforzato ones in particular) even double blind. But my reference was more to the way he seemed to have glee in being "right." Again, he seems to have no concept of unconscious bias. He thought after saying that all Valtellinas were awful, he could taste "with an open mind."

And of course there is palate preference. I know you think you like all styles, but frankly I think of you as a person (in reds) who typically likes big modern styled wines. I wouldn't see you as a candidate for Valtellina conversion (maybe the less expensive Fays). I'm not a huge fan myself by the way, though I've liked a few.

[David M. Bueker]

I like big, modern reds? Eek. Better sell all my Beaujolais & Burgundy (Truchot anyone?).

Gotta fix this reputation.

I was thinking more re your notes on Bordeaux. I do know you like Burgundy, including more traditional.

[David M. Bueker]

Truth be told I prefer older, more nuanced Bordeaux, but I don't own any. Most of my Bordeaux is going to lay down for years until it sheds a lot of its forward fruit and tannin. If I had the guts to buy at auction my drinking habits (and thus my notes) would be a lot different.

This post sums it up better than I could have..

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=202905 post #109

Also by the same person:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=202980

Once again, I wonder if some of us are holding wine critics to standards higher than those required for sainthood. I also wonder if we are picking just a few nits here....

1. There should be no problem with wines "tasted twice with consistent notes". That can happen

(a) when you have tasted several flights of wine blind, the wine in question being in two separate glasses with two separate numbers as a test to your own palate;

(b) when after having been revealed it seems that indeed the wine either under- or over-achieved dramatically. One then obtains another bottle, again to be tasted blind, to see if the original evaluation holds or not.

(c) when attending two separate tastings in which the same wine (albeit from a different bottle) appears

(d) when a wine so over or under performs that one suspects that the cause was bottle variation or that a producer might have sent a "ringer"


2. With regard to barrel tastings - indeed I agree that some wines under-show at first barrel tastings. Building up a repertoire of experience with that wine (e.g. as given earlier Cheval Blanc) allows one to project what will happen with the wine and barrel-tastgs are indeed largely projections.


3. With specific regard to Valtalina and Alto Adige, one has to realize that a revolution is taking place in those areas, the smaller wineries now passing from the hands of the older generation (dedicated yet to the"old way") to their children who have trained at Milan, in Bordeaux or at UCDavis and have done stages at some of the best wineries in Europe and the U.S.A. At this moment, there are therefore two distinctly different styles of wine coming from those areas.

4. Agreed that the critic should avoid close friendships with winemakers and owners of wineries as that cannot help but lead to bias. In cases where such friendships have existed or do exist, it is the critic's responsibility to taste the wine as would normally be tasted but to have his/her tasting notes and scores validated by one, two or three collagues for whom the critic has respect. Bias therefore eliminated....

5. With regard to trips for "educational purposes" and to get acquainted with the geographical, historical, social setting......forgive me but that is bullshit! Every critic makes tasting notes and almost always publishes them after those trips. That does not mean, however, that I am opposed to such trips so long as they are sponsored by a governmental body for even though that governmental body is trying to promote the wines of a given area (or in some cases of given wineries), one can quite easily on such trips extend one's stay and one's visits to places, wineries, people not included in the agencies itinerary. Accepting such trips should always be preceded with a formal letter to the inviting agency (copies to oneself and one's editor) in which the critic makes it clearly understood that although the hospitality and invitation are welcome they will not interfere in any way with his/her ability to write from the critical point of view.

6. As to meals taken with wineries or their representatives, I see no real problem especially if those meals are later in some fashion reciprocated. Indeed,I have dined with some great wine luminaries at some great restaurants on their account and when they come to Israel or if we meet in a city other than their own, it will be me that extends the invitation and pays the bill. For which often I say, not thank heavens for wineries but for the publisher of my newspaper. I can assure you that with an open mind there is a great deal to be learned at such meetings.

7. As to critics who cannot take criticism, simply stated they're in the wrong profession and are not acting at all as professionals.

8. With regard to "full disclosure", I cannot help but think that in some cases (e.g. trips abroad) a note should be made if that trip was paid for by other than the writer or his/her publication. I also think that a statement of policy should be available. I do not believe one should have to state every time a cup of coffee or a lunch was bought for the critic at a wine tasting event.

9. As to holding to standards, I can speak only to the various newspapers I have worked for (currently and in the past). Violate the standards of your newspaper ina minor way and you get a phone call; violate them in a somewhat more serious way and you get a reprimand; violate them strenuously and you are shown the door without a handshake as you leave the building. Newspapers that allow themselves to whore themselves have at least some whores working for them. Newspapers that hold to a firm set of standards take it for granted that so will their journalists. If the journalists do not, they then assume the title of "unemployed".

Best
Rogov

some of us are holding wine critics to standards higher than those required for sainthood.

I don't think anyone is looking for sainthood (or perfection). I think most of us are just saying:

If you say that blind tasting is done whenever possible - then do it whenever possible.
If you say "tickets, hotel rooms, ...must never be accepted," - then don't take the trips
If you say "it's imperative to keep one's distance from the trade", then don't vacation with the trade.
I can see no logical reason that there are separate ethical standards for the proprietor of a publication and the "independent contractors."

No one is asking that cups of coffee be disclosed, but trips should be.
People shouldn't review wines produced or distributed by close friends. That doesn't mean that one can't be friendly with hundreds of producers, but people that I know don't vacation with casual acquaintances.

These are not exactly calls for sainthood.
The other issue isn't ethical, but practical. I think anyone who claims to be able to effectively taste and judge 200+ wines in a day is ignorant of physiology and psychology.

Posted by Dale
"The other issue isn't ethical, but practical. I think anyone who claims to be able to effectively taste and judge 200+ wines in a day is ignorant of physiology and psychology."

Just so I understand where your logic comes from, how often have you tasted 200+ wines in a day?