quote:Originally posted by Randy Sloan:
For the record... and hopefully folks will believe me as I've been here longer than I've been making wine.
I have submitted several wines to Wine Spectator for review over the last few years. Some have not been reviewed and some have with scores of 87, 90, and 92. NEVER have I been approached by WS to solicite advertising or anything else.
This differs from another publication to which I submitted wines. While they didn't in any way imply that scores were tied to advertising, they immediately started trying to get me to buy shelf-talkers and an offer that I could pay to have my label picture appear with the review. I don't recall exactly but this "offer" was either part of an email informing me of the score or followed close behind. I declined.
Randy, thanks for sharing the truth in a thread that is devoid of much truth and littered with fools like Goldstein and others making statements without facts or knowledge.
quote:Originally posted by Holger B:
For Marvin Shanker, it's all about the money.
Isn't he the guitar player for The Scorpions?
quote:Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
Mimik, that would be Apocalypse Now.
Which as we all know, is really Heart of Darkness....
When I first heard this tidbit of news, I rather shrugged it off. I originally came to this site wanting to hear the WS's side and giving them the benefit of the doubt. But now, after reading this discussion, giving the WS the benefit of the doubt? Not so much...
The original explanation from Thomas Matthews, Executive Editor was sufficient until all of the facts are in. However it was the comment from James Molesworth, Senior Editor that caught my attention and made me think twice:
"This is the problem with the 'blogosphere'. It's a lazy person's journalism. No one does any real research, but rather they just slap some hyperlinks up and throw a little conjecture at the wall, and presto! you get some hits and traffic..."
Honestly James, with these continued insults to your readers and participants of this forum, you're not doing much for damage control. Matthew's explanation was quite enough. Furthermore, you have insulted a large group of people and bottled all of the blogosphere together with one cork. If the blogosphere is what you say it is, then why does the WS participate in it or care to comment on it?
And no James, as you suggested above:
Another internet blogger/free forum classic. Sign on, post and run.
If you wish to classify me as another internet blogger...whatever, if that is your best defense for this recent bit of controversy. And yes, I have signed on, posted and will "run" because I discovered that discussions like these on the WS Forum turn into nothing but a "dick waving contest." They are often a waste of time with no resolution and like this one, the original matter at hand has become dissolved and now we have WS management spinning blame onto their forum members. So, yes call me guilty of running, but I posted and now running for three reasons:
1. I thought it important my feelings as a "lazy person's journalist" be heard.
2. I am thinking that for being so innocent of these actions, James Molesworth "doth protest too much" and third;
3. I don't have a dick to wave so I will have to drop out of this contest.
The original explanation from Thomas Matthews, Executive Editor was sufficient until all of the facts are in. However it was the comment from James Molesworth, Senior Editor that caught my attention and made me think twice:
"This is the problem with the 'blogosphere'. It's a lazy person's journalism. No one does any real research, but rather they just slap some hyperlinks up and throw a little conjecture at the wall, and presto! you get some hits and traffic..."
Honestly James, with these continued insults to your readers and participants of this forum, you're not doing much for damage control. Matthew's explanation was quite enough. Furthermore, you have insulted a large group of people and bottled all of the blogosphere together with one cork. If the blogosphere is what you say it is, then why does the WS participate in it or care to comment on it?
And no James, as you suggested above:
Another internet blogger/free forum classic. Sign on, post and run.
If you wish to classify me as another internet blogger...whatever, if that is your best defense for this recent bit of controversy. And yes, I have signed on, posted and will "run" because I discovered that discussions like these on the WS Forum turn into nothing but a "dick waving contest." They are often a waste of time with no resolution and like this one, the original matter at hand has become dissolved and now we have WS management spinning blame onto their forum members. So, yes call me guilty of running, but I posted and now running for three reasons:
1. I thought it important my feelings as a "lazy person's journalist" be heard.
2. I am thinking that for being so innocent of these actions, James Molesworth "doth protest too much" and third;
3. I don't have a dick to wave so I will have to drop out of this contest.
quote:Originally posted by Gigond Ass:Actually some of us are just laughing our asses off at them.quote:Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
As much as I found this “scandal” a good laugh, watching the forum trolls getting their panties in a bunch over new posters is almost as rich.
Much like we do with you.......
I think Robert prefers we ignore the late night drunk posts.
quote:Originally posted by davem858:quote:Originally posted by Holger B:
For Marvin Shanker, it's all about the money. Putting aside how pathetic the "award" issue is, he's prostituted WS to the hilt.
I'm not going to defend the clown that made WS look like idiots, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. If the awards are for sale, where's the integrity for anything they do?
It's all downhill for Wine Spec from here.
For sale?? For $250?? WTF are you talking about? Do you really think $250 gets you anything in the wine world? If so, you are seriously out of touch with reality.
How clueless are you?
The restaurant pays to be included in the listing in the magazine and receive the "award". That's commonly referred to as advertising (i.e. no pay, no play).
How are readers to know where else that policy applies with regards to anything else that WS does or publishes? (Personally, I think the ratings are legit, but who's to say they won't eventually be for sale too?)
The concept of people paying to receive awards is a big blow to WS's integrity that's driven by greed on the part of management to maximize revenues.
Are restaurants paying Michelin or Zagat or whoever for their reviews and awards?
quote:Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:quote:Originally posted by Holger B:
For Marvin Shanker, it's all about the money.
Isn't he the guitar player for The Scorpions?
No, I think his name is Rudolph Schneckner (or something like that)
Scorpions are awesome
quote:Originally posted by vin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1WineDude:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maverick:
Are you the editor of a big wine magazine?
No. I'm a wine blogger.
Do the makers of Screaming Eagle, Harlan or Colgin call you for your opinion?
No. I've been approached by Penns Woods, Rodney Strong and Opus One.
I'm not going to check out your blogs (you post here and can answer here), but to add some credibility to your post how do you feel about the above mentioned wines, in particular Opus One?
Totally understand - and I'm not here looking for blog traffic so that's cool by me.
As for the wines, not 100% sure what you're looking for (after all, according to some here I could just be getting this info. off of the Internet... technically it might be true since I do cover this on my blog somewhere I'm sure):
Penns Woods: Made (improbably enough) near the Philly airport (yeah.. I know, I know!). At worst, over-extracted & astringent(roses); first year out of the gate; at best, impossibly ripe and full for PA wines (Ameritage blend & Chard.). Has potential to become the best stuff coming out of the right coast.
Rodney Strong: Just reviewed the Rockaway Vineyard allocated Cab., also first year out (2005). Luscious, fruit is really pure and all dark, just like the color. It's got enough fruit to counteract all the booze (15%+), needs at least 5 years but shows major, major promise.
Opus One: I love Opus (I know... I know...). Inconsistent performance since `99, though. `98s (supposedly a bad year) are probably at peak and drinking *beautifully* right now (not terribly complex, but the fruit is stellar). they tell me some changes are afoot, I'll be out there in Oct. to check that out.
Should add that I've never had Harlan, SE, or Colgin. They've not offered, and my bank account's in good shape, but not *that* good!
Cheers
quote:It's really a shame that it's been offered here in this forum, and not via a PR department.…As it stands, here I am until I can get a response from the Shaken Communications PR department.
1WineDude, I don't understand why you would prefer or are waiting for a response from our "PR department" -- Wine Spectator's executive editor has posted our official response, in the most public forum available on our site. It's open to discussion from anyone interested -- not just our site members, not just forums members (who may not be site members), but to everyone. And several WS editors continue to be involved in responding to questions. We didn't want to just issue a press release with no room for discussion.
The tone of discourse may not always be as polite as we would hope, but the tone has been less than civil on many other blogs and forums that have been discussing this issue.
As for JMFremont's completely unsubstantiated allegations about advertising and ratings, anyone is welcome to search our entire online database of nearly 200,000 wine ratings, where not only can you see all the wines that have received high scores made by producers who have never once placed an ad in our publication or on our website (as James has already noted), you can also see all 22,200+ ratings of 79 points or less that we've given out over the decades -- to large and small producers alike, to those who have advertised and those who haven't, to producers whose wines we've rated well before and after but who had an off year, to high-priced wines and low-priced wines. I think you'll find that our blind tastings are truly blind.
Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com
I find this thread oddly hypnotic.
quote:Originally posted by Dana Nigro:quote:It's really a shame that it's been offered here in this forum, and not via a PR department.…As it stands, here I am until I can get a response from the Shaken Communications PR department.
1WineDude, I don't understand why you would prefer or are waiting for a response from our "PR department" -- Wine Spectator's executive editor has posted our official response, in the most public forum available on our site. It's open to discussion from anyone interested -- not just our site members, not just forums members (who may not be site members), but to everyone. And several WS editors continue to be involved in responding to questions. We didn't want to just issue a press release with no room for discussion.
The tone of discourse may not always be as polite as we would hope, but the tone has been less than civil on many other blogs and forums that have been discussing this issue.
As for JMFremont's completely unsubstantiated allegations about advertising and ratings, anyone is welcome to search our entire online database of nearly 200,000 wine ratings, where not only can you see all the wines that have received high scores made by producers who have never once placed an ad in our publication or on our website (as James has already noted), you can also see all 22,200+ ratings of 79 points or less that we've given out over the decades -- to large and small producers alike, to those who have advertised and those who haven't, to producers whose wines we've rated well before and after but who had an off year, to high-priced wines and low-priced wines. I think you'll find that our blind tastings are truly blind.
Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com
Hi Dana,
I appreciate that WS wanted the response open to the public. And I am sensitive to the fact that media response to this event has been inordinately negative to WS (for reasons that I'm unable to comprehend, frankly). It's not the transparency from the WS Editors that's the problem.
This is a *tough* forum for any new posters, especially those who are looking to have discourse with you on the WS response to the Goldstein claims. It's tough enough that I might be the only blogger still left who's sticking it out!
There also seems to be a negative view of bloggers in general, and that's being perpetuated by some of the editors themselves.
My point is that it's public, but it's not a vehicle for real discourse. Having a PR contact handle the response as well would give bloggers and media someone to contact for one on one discussion, which isn't really possible on the forum.
I should point out for the forum members that I've no association with the comments from JMFremont, but I am concerned when a senior editor of a magazine like WS tells a commentor to "climb back under a stone." Or for another to lump all bloggers together as "lazy." I am sure the comments they were responding to deserved worse, but not from a senior editor. I'd hold the editorial body of WS to a higher standard of conduct than that.
quote:Originally posted by 1WineDude:quote:Originally posted by vin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1WineDude:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maverick:
Are you the editor of a big wine magazine?
No. I'm a wine blogger.
Do the makers of Screaming Eagle, Harlan or Colgin call you for your opinion?
No. I've been approached by Penns Woods, Rodney Strong and Opus One.
I'm not going to check out your blogs (you post here and can answer here), but to add some credibility to your post how do you feel about the above mentioned wines, in particular Opus One?
Totally understand - and I'm not here looking for blog traffic so that's cool by me.
As for the wines, not 100% sure what you're looking for (after all, according to some here I could just be getting this info. off of the Internet... technically it might be true since I do cover this on my blog somewhere I'm sure):
Penns Woods: Made (improbably enough) near the Philly airport (yeah.. I know, I know!). At worst, over-extracted & astringent(roses); first year out of the gate; at best, impossibly ripe and full for PA wines (Ameritage blend & Chard.). Has potential to become the best stuff coming out of the right coast.
Rodney Strong: Just reviewed the Rockaway Vineyard allocated Cab., also first year out (2005). Luscious, fruit is really pure and all dark, just like the color. It's got enough fruit to counteract all the booze (15%+), needs at least 5 years but shows major, major promise.
Opus One: I love Opus (I know... I know...). Inconsistent performance since `99, though. `98s (supposedly a bad year) are probably at peak and drinking *beautifully* right now (not terribly complex, but the fruit is stellar). they tell me some changes are afoot, I'll be out there in Oct. to check that out.
Should add that I've never had Harlan, SE, or Colgin. They've not offered, and my bank account's in good shape, but not *that* good!
Cheers
I'll have to give the Rockaway Vin. a try. Agree w/ the decline in Opus and I find it overpriced, been let down more than once and am done w/ it (for now???). For the Screaming Eagle, Harlan, Colgin it's out of my price range too. Thanks for response.
Walla2WineWoman: My comments regarding the blogosphere were not a defense of the incident that is the crux of the issue here. My comments on the blogosphere were in regards to all the blog sites that jumped on the story and merely 'reported' it as second hand info without bothering to call either side for confirmation...
I checked out your blog and you did exactly the same thing - you passed along a story second hand, complete with provocative headline and using the word "apparently" in the lede graph. It also included the misleading statement that "a wine list was built using the lowest scoring Italian wines from the Wine Spectator magazine."
Since I assume you didn't attend the conference where Goldstein revealed his so called 'sting', nor did you call to interview Goldstein or Wine Spectator for their first hand version of the event, I'd call that lazy journalism...
You then wound up with this graph:
"Last but not least, if Goldstein's "research" proves to be with merit, then wineries and winemakers may ponder the credibility of their scores from the Wine Spectator and especially those scores below 90 points that have influenced and turned away wine sales from the high-point driven wine"...
I'd call that conjecture...
It's also the first time I think the magazine has been accused of deliberately low-balling scores to damage a winery's economic bottom line. Are you claiming we do that to the non-advertisers?
You have a blog about wine - great. I like that. That's actually the main reason you and I are in the business - because we like wine and want to tell people about it....
But before you cast stones about someone else not running a tight ship, please check yours first...
I checked out your blog and you did exactly the same thing - you passed along a story second hand, complete with provocative headline and using the word "apparently" in the lede graph. It also included the misleading statement that "a wine list was built using the lowest scoring Italian wines from the Wine Spectator magazine."
Since I assume you didn't attend the conference where Goldstein revealed his so called 'sting', nor did you call to interview Goldstein or Wine Spectator for their first hand version of the event, I'd call that lazy journalism...
You then wound up with this graph:
"Last but not least, if Goldstein's "research" proves to be with merit, then wineries and winemakers may ponder the credibility of their scores from the Wine Spectator and especially those scores below 90 points that have influenced and turned away wine sales from the high-point driven wine"...
I'd call that conjecture...
It's also the first time I think the magazine has been accused of deliberately low-balling scores to damage a winery's economic bottom line. Are you claiming we do that to the non-advertisers?
You have a blog about wine - great. I like that. That's actually the main reason you and I are in the business - because we like wine and want to tell people about it....
But before you cast stones about someone else not running a tight ship, please check yours first...
quote:Originally posted by vin:
I'll have to give the Rockaway Vin. a try. Agree w/ the decline in Opus and I find it overpriced, been let down more than once and am done w/ it (for now???). For the Screaming Eagle, Harlan, Colgin it's out of my price range too. Thanks for response.
It's worth it - you'll need to sign up via their website to get on the mailing list: http://www.rockawayvineyard.com/rockaway/club/club_signup.jsp
Cheers
Ehhh James, pay no mind to the injured bloggers. Hell, anyone can have a blog. Calling the vast majority of them journalism is laughable.
I've got a new moniker for the most recent injured blogger......
Walla Walla WHINE Woman.
If a bunch of hit and run wacko's impugned my professional integrity, I'm certain my response would have been much less professional and measured than that of the staff of Winespectator. Frankly, I'd have repeatedly kicked them in their cyber nuts.
I've got a new moniker for the most recent injured blogger......
Walla Walla WHINE Woman.
If a bunch of hit and run wacko's impugned my professional integrity, I'm certain my response would have been much less professional and measured than that of the staff of Winespectator. Frankly, I'd have repeatedly kicked them in their cyber nuts.
I don't see why this issue is still this complicated.
Wine Spectator takes an administrative fee for their awards program. Granted, it does appear that the fee basically just gets you listed in the magazine (2/3 entrants being given awards is quite high) but it's common knowledge that this is how they do their awards.
They were outdone by a well thought-out scam, bravo to Mr. Goldstein for having enough time to waste to make his point.
Wine Spectator needs to put more effort into ensuring the validity of each restaurant and wine program. If they can not do this, then I would suggest changing the format and calling it something other than "Best of Award." For the million or so they make on the administrative fees, they could hire someone full time (I'll do it for $100k ) that would be solely responsible for the restaurant issue and its credibility.
James comment about bloggers initially came off to me as offensive, but I didn't judge it without context and now accept his explanation...people were very quick to put down the magazine before hearing their side. It's quite common for us bloggers to report (repeat) a story we hear somewhere else and give our take on the matter without doing more to ensure the facts. I think it's a good lesson to all bloggers that just because someone posts it, twitters it, or podcasts it, doesn't mean it began as a fair or unbiased story. Goldstein's scam was rather complex and he did not give us the full story to begin with.
That said, with thousands of wine blogs, wine news resources and other internet sites, the Wine Spectator must be diligent in their fact checking and they must expect (and be prepared for) this type of response when such a mistake is made.
Wine Spectator takes an administrative fee for their awards program. Granted, it does appear that the fee basically just gets you listed in the magazine (2/3 entrants being given awards is quite high) but it's common knowledge that this is how they do their awards.
They were outdone by a well thought-out scam, bravo to Mr. Goldstein for having enough time to waste to make his point.
Wine Spectator needs to put more effort into ensuring the validity of each restaurant and wine program. If they can not do this, then I would suggest changing the format and calling it something other than "Best of Award." For the million or so they make on the administrative fees, they could hire someone full time (I'll do it for $100k
) that would be solely responsible for the restaurant issue and its credibility.James comment about bloggers initially came off to me as offensive, but I didn't judge it without context and now accept his explanation...people were very quick to put down the magazine before hearing their side. It's quite common for us bloggers to report (repeat) a story we hear somewhere else and give our take on the matter without doing more to ensure the facts. I think it's a good lesson to all bloggers that just because someone posts it, twitters it, or podcasts it, doesn't mean it began as a fair or unbiased story. Goldstein's scam was rather complex and he did not give us the full story to begin with.
That said, with thousands of wine blogs, wine news resources and other internet sites, the Wine Spectator must be diligent in their fact checking and they must expect (and be prepared for) this type of response when such a mistake is made.
quote:Originally posted by 1WineDude:
<< insert what was said >>
OK. So your certificates get you little more than nothing. Simple. They seem like nothing more or less than an "Award" of types. Did you get them for free, or was there some type of payment involved? OK. You're a "Wine Blogger". Swell. You can type and maybe construct a full, complete sentence. I'm happy for you. You know what, both Rodney Strong and Opus One have consulted with me too. I was at a tasting and the pourer/rep asked me what I thought. I gave him my opinion, and called it a day.
quote:If you run a grocery/drug store are you a nutritionist, gynecologist or brain surgeon?
Uh.... what the heck are you talking about?
I'm talking about the fact that your certificates don't make you any more of a "wine expert" than anyone else paying for the juice that they buy and drink. I'll repeat that you and your certificates don't give you any room to come to this forum only to tell the hosts what their problems are. Maybe you could pay some rent here with some constructive beneficial posts before you look for Molesworth, Suckling, and/or Shanken's jobs. You're a "blogger", BFD. That doesn't give you any entitlement to anything. I don't think you're here to "better understand WS Editors' response to Goldstein". You're here to bitch, moan and wave your "I've got certificates" flag in someone else's neighborhood. I think you're looking, much like Goldstein, for 15 minutes of fame. If you want "forums that promote constructive discourse without "hazing" new posters" then go over to eBob. Sign in today and make your first 10 posts be criticisms about Robert Parker. You won't make it to post #4 before your sorry ass is gone. You've been given enough solid responses from the top staff of WS. Don't cry for more, just STFU already.
1WineDude,
We're not a big company; get a copy of the magazine and take a look at the masthead. You've got your "PR contact" right here--the editors who are responding to the discussion (on a Saturday, nonetheless). Thomas Matthews has been responding to requests for interviews from media (and if you take a look at the initial coverage, you can see how few blogs and media even attempted to contact us for comment), but there's not enough time in the week for him to conduct one-on-one interviews with every one of the hundreds of wine and food bloggers out there, even if they had asked. We still have magazine issues to put out, and all of us had plenty of work to do before this.
Thus we have a public statement in a public forum where anyone -- mainstream media, bloggers, trade, consumers -- can participate in the discussion and see what's being said, positive or negative. And we are not censoring it.
We're sorry if you feel that results in an environment that isn't welcoming, but this seems to us to be the best option available.
We're not a big company; get a copy of the magazine and take a look at the masthead. You've got your "PR contact" right here--the editors who are responding to the discussion (on a Saturday, nonetheless). Thomas Matthews has been responding to requests for interviews from media (and if you take a look at the initial coverage, you can see how few blogs and media even attempted to contact us for comment), but there's not enough time in the week for him to conduct one-on-one interviews with every one of the hundreds of wine and food bloggers out there, even if they had asked. We still have magazine issues to put out, and all of us had plenty of work to do before this.
Thus we have a public statement in a public forum where anyone -- mainstream media, bloggers, trade, consumers -- can participate in the discussion and see what's being said, positive or negative. And we are not censoring it.
We're sorry if you feel that results in an environment that isn't welcoming, but this seems to us to be the best option available.
quote:Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:quote:Originally posted by Holger B:
For Marvin Shanker, it's all about the money.
Isn't he the guitar player for The Scorpions?
I thought he was with Spinal Tap.
What do we learn from this issue ?
A very dishonnest person could win a WS award.
(A very dishonnest person could win an Olympic Gold medal)
Let's not confound delinquent and victim: WS is the victim.
The WS award system has a clear soft spot: Not all restaurants are visited by WS contributors.
That raises the question if that soft spot could be (or was already) used by real restaurants ?
What about the 250$ application fee ? I think that's normal practice, you pay for participating at the game. One could argue, that part of the 250$ should be used by WS to send people to the restaurants, checking the real existence of the submitted wine-list
One cannot deny there's a certain economical interest in not changing the policy: Not needing to visit the restaurants means being able to gather more attendants and thus more 250$ fees.
What about the future ?
Does WS consider the issue as 'collateral damage' to an otherwise working system or does WS consider to change its policy of judging wine-lists without visting all of the restaurants ? (The restaurants likely to get an award, should be visited, in my opinion)
A very dishonnest person could win a WS award.
(A very dishonnest person could win an Olympic Gold medal)
Let's not confound delinquent and victim: WS is the victim.
The WS award system has a clear soft spot: Not all restaurants are visited by WS contributors.
That raises the question if that soft spot could be (or was already) used by real restaurants ?
What about the 250$ application fee ? I think that's normal practice, you pay for participating at the game. One could argue, that part of the 250$ should be used by WS to send people to the restaurants, checking the real existence of the submitted wine-list
One cannot deny there's a certain economical interest in not changing the policy: Not needing to visit the restaurants means being able to gather more attendants and thus more 250$ fees.
What about the future ?
Does WS consider the issue as 'collateral damage' to an otherwise working system or does WS consider to change its policy of judging wine-lists without visting all of the restaurants ? (The restaurants likely to get an award, should be visited, in my opinion)
James, perhaps you read my post in haste with a prepared mindset. Absolutely, I am guilty of a "provacative headline." In fact, I learned how to headline from reading my favorite magazine, the Wine Spectator...and your point? Guilty of anything else? No.
What you are failing to note is that I gave the facts and only the facts that I have at this time. When I have more facts that will resolve this situation, I will post those, as well. I prepared both links, WS and Goldstein, so my readers could read both sides of the story.
You said:
It's also the first time I think the magazine has been accused of deliberately low-balling scores to damage a winery's economic bottom line. Are you claiming we do that to the non-advertisers?
I did not accuse the magazine of deliberately lowballing scores nor did I claim the magazine did that to non-advertisers. In fact, the non-advertising topic was the furthest from my mind - - until now that you bring it up. And since you brought it up, I feel pretty confident that "no advertising = no high scores" is not WS policy.
But, you can't tell me that a winery who has not faired so well from WS scores after reading this recent controversy isn't going to question their scores? So don't try putting words into my mouth that are not there - you seem to have a habit of this when being defensive.
And you are correct about one thing:
cast stones about someone else not running a tight ship, please check yours first...
But you see...you are the professional making money from a publication and you should be running a tight ship - - the example. Afterall, I am just a member of the "lazy person's journalism."
So, if you're ever in Walla Walla, let me know -I'll be happy to buy you a glass of wine.
What you are failing to note is that I gave the facts and only the facts that I have at this time. When I have more facts that will resolve this situation, I will post those, as well. I prepared both links, WS and Goldstein, so my readers could read both sides of the story.
You said:
It's also the first time I think the magazine has been accused of deliberately low-balling scores to damage a winery's economic bottom line. Are you claiming we do that to the non-advertisers?
I did not accuse the magazine of deliberately lowballing scores nor did I claim the magazine did that to non-advertisers. In fact, the non-advertising topic was the furthest from my mind - - until now that you bring it up. And since you brought it up, I feel pretty confident that "no advertising = no high scores" is not WS policy.
But, you can't tell me that a winery who has not faired so well from WS scores after reading this recent controversy isn't going to question their scores? So don't try putting words into my mouth that are not there - you seem to have a habit of this when being defensive.
And you are correct about one thing:
cast stones about someone else not running a tight ship, please check yours first...
But you see...you are the professional making money from a publication and you should be running a tight ship - - the example. Afterall, I am just a member of the "lazy person's journalism."
So, if you're ever in Walla Walla, let me know -I'll be happy to buy you a glass of wine.
quote:Originally posted by Maverick:quote:Originally posted by 1WineDude:
<< insert what was said >>
OK. So your certificates get you little more than nothing. Simple. They seem like nothing more or less than an "Award" of types. Did you get them for free, or was there some type of payment involved? OK. You're a "Wine Blogger". Swell. You can type and maybe construct a full, complete sentence. I'm happy for you. You know what, both Rodney Strong and Opus One have consulted with me too. I was at a tasting and the pourer/rep asked me what I thought. I gave him my opinion, and called it a day.quote:If you run a grocery/drug store are you a nutritionist, gynecologist or brain surgeon?
Uh.... what the heck are you talking about?
I'm talking about the fact that your certificates don't make you any more of a "wine expert" than anyone else paying for the juice that they buy and drink. I'll repeat that you and your certificates don't give you any room to come to this forum only to tell the hosts what their problems are. Maybe you could pay some rent here with some constructive beneficial posts before you look for Molesworth, Suckling, and/or Shanken's jobs. You're a "blogger", BFD. That doesn't give you any entitlement to anything. I don't think you're here to "better understand WS Editors' response to Goldstein". You're here to bitch, moan and wave your "I've got certificates" flag in someone else's neighborhood. I think you're looking, much like Goldstein, for 15 minutes of fame. If you want "forums that promote constructive discourse without "hazing" new posters" then go over to eBob. Sign in today and make your first 10 posts be criticisms about Robert Parker. You won't make it to post #4 before your sorry ass is gone. You've been given enough solid responses from the top staff of WS. Don't cry for more, just STFU already.
In the interest of trying to be a good player here at the forum, I've tried to respond to the questions I've been asked. I also tried to defend the SWE and WSET when those cert. programs were challenged (not a defense of myself). I never brought up the certs., my credentials, or anything else about me - another poster did all of that by attacking me, I just didn't want to sit idle and risk valuable institutions like the WSET and SWE take it in the neck and be misrepresented here.
Maverick, I'm not going to respond to your trolling directly. If it makes you feel better about yourself to spew that crap, then have at it - it doesn't impact me in the slightest.
To the WS Editors, I'd offer Maverick's attack above as a timely example to bolster my earlier response to Dana (re: why this forum does not offer the opportunity for real discourse). If you feel that Maverick's complaints qualify under "the tone of discourse may not always be as polite as we would hope", then I'd hate to see when it gets totally uncivil, because you've got a real problem on your hands with this forum if that's the case.
Mr. Molesworth:
Though you stated that your "comments on the blogosphere were in regard to all the blog sites that jumped on the story and mere 'reported' it as second hand info without bothering to call either side for confirmation", that is not how you came across in your original post. You post painted all bloggers as the same, stating "No one does any real research,..."
It is both unfair and wrong to paint all bloggers as such. I doubt you meant your comment to include yourself and the rest of the WS staff who write or contribute to blogs. I can understand your frustration at the underlying matter but that does not justify negative stereotypes. Such can only aggravate the issues.
Thanks,
Richard A.
Though you stated that your "comments on the blogosphere were in regard to all the blog sites that jumped on the story and mere 'reported' it as second hand info without bothering to call either side for confirmation", that is not how you came across in your original post. You post painted all bloggers as the same, stating "No one does any real research,..."
It is both unfair and wrong to paint all bloggers as such. I doubt you meant your comment to include yourself and the rest of the WS staff who write or contribute to blogs. I can understand your frustration at the underlying matter but that does not justify negative stereotypes. Such can only aggravate the issues.
Thanks,
Richard A.
quote:The restaurant pays to be included in the listing in the magazine and receive the "award". That's commonly referred to as advertising (i.e. no pay, no play).
so then what about the restaurants who pay the application fee but don't get their award? what are they paying for? this "pay for play" speculation seems flawed by the fact that not every restaurant gets listed in the magazine.
RichardPF: That's why I clarified the comment...
I consciously try to make sure my blog deals with first hand accounts of interviews and visits with winemakers, as well as my own accounts of various events in my life. I never simply pass along a hyperlink with the "my friend told me..." type of writing that I feel does pervade the blogosphere. From the looks of your blog, we seem to be on the same page...kudos to you.
In the NY Post on Page Six they reported on the story - and it's an example of fair and partial journalism. It reports the story. The author gets quotes from both sides and gives both sides of the story equal time. The title is provocative but not misleading...
I consciously try to make sure my blog deals with first hand accounts of interviews and visits with winemakers, as well as my own accounts of various events in my life. I never simply pass along a hyperlink with the "my friend told me..." type of writing that I feel does pervade the blogosphere. From the looks of your blog, we seem to be on the same page...kudos to you.
In the NY Post on Page Six they reported on the story - and it's an example of fair and partial journalism. It reports the story. The author gets quotes from both sides and gives both sides of the story equal time. The title is provocative but not misleading...
quote:Originally posted by Walla2WineWoman:
What you are failing to note is that I gave the facts and only the facts that I have at this time. When I have more facts that will resolve this situation, I will post those, as well. I prepared both links, WS and Goldstein, so my readers could read both sides of the story.
Hi, I just visted your blog. Did you attend the conference? And if not, where did you get your facts?
Tanglenet, to answer your question. No, I did not attend the conference. I received my information about this topic from the Wines & Vines magazine and the Wine Spectator forum.
Wow, WS got caught with its pants down and is blaming the door opener for trickery. Face it WS, you were dialing it in. ‘We called and heard a recording…..’ well that’s as good as handshake and face time isn’t it. ‘We read blog postings….’ So if it’s written on a bathroom wall it’s fit to print as fact. You rate wine, but are peddling whine.
Thank you Robin Goldstein for reminding everyone that iconoclastic institutions such as WS, which trades daily on its reputation, MUST be diligent, factual and above all DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK to remain credible. WS you shape opinions, build loyalty, and above all have the ability to affect an establishment/winery financial bottom line. Be worthy.
Thank you Robin Goldstein for reminding everyone that iconoclastic institutions such as WS, which trades daily on its reputation, MUST be diligent, factual and above all DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK to remain credible. WS you shape opinions, build loyalty, and above all have the ability to affect an establishment/winery financial bottom line. Be worthy.
OK. Here's your first post:
Where in here did you say anything positive, without coming off as some type of entitled expert?
HELLO???
LOL. So what exactly, are you saying? I haven't "attacked" you; I haven't been any more "uncivil" with you than you have been with WS. I've only pointed ideas out, much like you have. Trust me, I've been polite. I'm not a troll. You just can't get past anything I've said. You are a crybaby who is choked up with a belief of entitlement. You should be over-the-top happy as a clown for the fact that I keep extending your 15 minutes of fame with my replies to you
.
quote:Originally posted by 1WineDude:
While I do understand that WS cannot do more than due dilligence to verify the existence of a restaurant, I find Matthews response lacking.
By taking a stance of victimization, and attacking back in what Matthews feels is in-kind retaliation, WS is showing a distinct lack of the class we would expect from such a long-running institution among wine lovers.
I am having a difficult time trying to comprehend why WS / Matthews would not acknowledge that the awards process has some kinks in its armor that need to be addressed, perhaps even reaching out to the public here or those that ran the study for ideas on how to address the 5% of low quality wines that they seemingly missed from the award-winning wine list in this case.
This is simply bad form.
Where in here did you say anything positive, without coming off as some type of entitled expert?
HELLO???
quote:Originally posted by 1WineDude:
I never brought up the certs., my credentials, or anything else about me .....
quote:Originally posted by 1WineDude:
Actually, I am certified by some regarded international boards when it comes to wine knowledge.
CSW is awarded by exam from the Society of Wine Educators, probably the preeminent wine education body in the U.S.
I'm also certified by the Wine & Spirit Education Trust (out of London), which is the official "feeder" program for those seeking to entrance into the Institute of Masters of Wine.
If you're interested in these designations, you can learn more about them here:
http://1winedude.blogspot.com/2007/10/hey-you-like-one-of-them-thar-some.html
Forums like this one don't belong to a clique. They aren't owned by any group. And I'm willing to stick around on this one if only to prove the point that anyone with an interest in WS has a right to be heard here.
quote:Originally posted by 1WineDude:
However, if you're talking about certifications from the most internationally-recognized wine education bodies, those I *do* have.
Though I cannot speak on their behalf, I do know folks on the BoD for the Society of Wine Educators and I'm pretty sure that they'd consider your casual dismissal of their Certified Specialist of Wine credential a bit offensive.
If you'd like to learn more you can check out their website here: http://www.societyofwineeducators.org/public/education_...ification/index.aspx
The WSET Advanced Certificate is also pretty rigorous, but that's what many people in the wine industry go for to give themselves upward potential for their careers. Suggest you take a look at http://www.wset.co.uk/documents/2008advancedspec.pdf for more info.
Basically, for the vast majority of people out there, these certs. should signal that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to wine.
This is not a defense of me. It's a defense of these highly-regarded programs. Of the 'big 3' cert. tracks in the wine world, the only one I'm not involved in is the Court of Master Sommeliers, which concentrates on wine service.
If, after reading the info. at the links above, you still think these programs are bogus, or don't judge well someone's overall knowledge of the world of wine (bear in mind that the WSET includes a tasting component, so it's not all academic), then I'm not sure what to tell you - you'd be in a very small minority.
LOL. So what exactly, are you saying? I haven't "attacked" you; I haven't been any more "uncivil" with you than you have been with WS. I've only pointed ideas out, much like you have. Trust me, I've been polite. I'm not a troll. You just can't get past anything I've said. You are a crybaby who is choked up with a belief of entitlement. You should be over-the-top happy as a clown for the fact that I keep extending your 15 minutes of fame with my replies to you
.
quote:Originally posted by Walla2WineWoman:
I am guilty of a "provacative headline." In fact, I learned how to headline from reading my favorite magazine, the Wine Spectator...and your point? Guilty of anything else? No.
What you are failing to note is that I gave the facts and only the facts...
Good lord, I can't believe that I'm going to post to this almost-absurd thread, but since I went to the trouble of looking at your blog, I can't help myself. I'll tell you what you're guilty of: disingenuousness, based on the comments above. And throw in a good helping of non sequitur, based on what I saw on your blog.
You've got 4 paragraphs on your front page. The final one-- and I guess that would make it 25% of all the paragraphs you wrote there-- takes a real leap in logic. Let me quote you:
Last but not least, if Goldstein's "research" proves to be with merit, then wineries and winemakers may ponder the credibility of their scores from the Wine Spectator and especially those scores below 90 points that have influenced and turned away wine sales from the high-point driven wine consumer.
No one is denying Goldstein's research. Of course, it has merit: it's TRUE! He created a fake restaurant with a fake wine list, and got an award. He did what he set out to do. There's merit just in achieving one's goal. He's already received lots of praise of that.
The issue is not whether his prank has merit; the issue is whether one example like his negates all of the wine list awards given. And even if there were others who have faked their complete lists, the number would have to be significantly large to negate the entire program. I doubt that a lot of restaurants that submitted fake wine lists are going to come forward now to admit that they, too, were scamming WS.
But none of that is the point that YOU made. You managed to somehow conclude that "wineries and winemakers may ponder the credibility of their scores from the Wine Spectator," because somehow you have deduced wines that were tasted and reviewed cannot have been done so credibly because someone submitted a fake wine list from a fake restaurant and got away with it!! Good lord, can you not yourself see the ridiculousness of that unbelievable stretch of logic?
I will guess, based on the fact that you honestly don't come across as an idiot, that you can easily see that the entire paragraph that I quoted is your opinion. And sure, you're entitled to it, and it may even have some merit in your mind. But please, don't pass off what is written on your blog as being "facts and only the facts."
And that may or may not be lazy journalism, but it's really editorializing and not reporting.
I have no horse in this race, have stated previously that I'm surprised at how a mountain grew out of this molehill, but man, there is a lot real crap being thrown about in discussing a topic that was never really complicated to begin with! Trouble is, all that crap has muddied the information so much that it's hard to remember the very few statements presented that actually have some merit to them.
And that is my 2¢ worth.
quote:LOL. So what exactly, are you saying? I haven't "attacked" you, I haven't been any more "uncivil" with you than you have been with WS. I've only pointed ideas out, much like you have. Trust me, I've been polite. I'm not a troll. You just can't get past anything I've said. You are a crybaby who is choked up with a belief of entitlement. You should be over-the-top happy as a clown for the fact that I keep extending your 15 minutes of fame with my replies to you
So, let me get this straight...
I want to make sure I really understand you here....
1) I am looking for 15 minutes of fame?
And I am looking for it somewhere buried in a WS forum post on the Internet, page 19, 20, whatever...
In the same unmoderated forum that allows you, shrouded totally in anonymity, to attack new posters, quote them out of context (just like you did above to me), and tell them, in your polite and civil way, to "STFU"?
2) Also, just so I am sure, you're saying that I'm coming to the WS forum to claim entitlement over the wine review prowess of everyone else on the forum, including the WS editors who taste *exponentially* more wine than I do on a regular basis?
And I'm doing this despite the fact that one of the driving forces behind my wine blog has been to convince others that they DON'T have to have any fancy certifications or other credentials to enjoy wine?
3) And you're also saying that you're being polite and civil, and you're doing this by telling me to STFU? And then reprimanding me after all of that for not adding anything positive to the discussion here?
4) And you're so clever in your pronouncements that I can't get past what you're saying?
Are you *absolutely sure* sure that's what you're saying?
Because that sounds very odd to me.
quote:Originally posted by Walla2WineWoman:
Tanglenet, to answer your question. No, I did not attend the conference. I received my information about this topic from the Wines & Vines magazine and the Wine Spectator forum.
Thanks for the info. I saw that you interviewed Gary Vaynerchuck for an article on your site. I would consider that a primary source of material for your blog.
You said that you are using Wines and Vines (Peter Mitham, the author of the article) as the source. So, I am assuming that you have not talked to Robin Goldstein or Peter Mitham (and as I can't tell if Peter was actually at the conference) if this was a PR release, or how far down the original source his article is based on or how to rank it on an information tree.
WS is communicating with you directly via the forums, so you have their side of the issue.
I have to agree with JM's response to "lazy journalism" in the blogsphere.
I think you can do better.
quote:I haven't been any more "uncivil" with you than you have been with WS. I've only pointed ideas out, much like you have. Trust me, I've been polite. I'm not a troll.
You have in fact been uncivil with me.
I'd like to know where I told the WS editors to STFU.
I'd like to know where I duped them into a sidetrack conversation about my cert. credentials, and then denounced them as elitist for defending their institutions.
I'd like to know why you didn't quote any of my other posts in this forum where I sided with WS editors, and asked them for additional clarifying information.
If this is what's taken for polite on this forum, then WS has a problem on their hands.
Your posts wouldn't last 3 minutes in any forum that I ran, regardless of the topic.
And they'd certainly be flagged as inappropriate on the Open Wine Consortium forums, where productive discourse happens every day.
Patronizing me by then telling me you're being polite is an insult, and a pathetic one at that.
It's not my posts that will drag this forum into the dirt.
It's posts from people like you.
And if you can look into the mirror and honestly tell yourself that you're in the right here, then delusion really is the most powerful force in the known universe.
I have read each reply, and made note and completed a database d/l to prove that somthing is off with all these replies.
The time to post of each message it to unrealistic, It seems someone not a true members posted all these replies, A simple look at the times posted will give a clear views as to the ligitimate reason. Just to make it look like members are mad... Interesting, I will keep this thread and post times for future use.
PS: Next time Wait a bit longer till you post your next fake reply.. Your BUSTED again..
The time to post of each message it to unrealistic, It seems someone not a true members posted all these replies, A simple look at the times posted will give a clear views as to the ligitimate reason. Just to make it look like members are mad... Interesting, I will keep this thread and post times for future use.
PS: Next time Wait a bit longer till you post your next fake reply.. Your BUSTED again..
Dana,
WHy isn't Spectator suing over this incident? Sure he can claim journalistic public interest was what motivated him but given the misleading information given to you, that would constitute fraud!
WHy isn't Spectator suing over this incident? Sure he can claim journalistic public interest was what motivated him but given the misleading information given to you, that would constitute fraud!
quote:Originally posted by Seaquam:
...I can't believe that I'm going to post to this almost-absurd thread...
I have no horse in this race...
...all that crap has muddied the information so much...
And that is my 2¢ worth.
Yes, and it's only worth 2¢. But for someone who has no horse in this race, you seemed to manage to get at least eight paragraphs full of crap that has added to this muddied almost-absurb thread that you speak of. Cheers!
Uh oh, another PWI incident. Can anybody interpret it? Please, only interpretations from REAL members, if possible.
Moo
Moo
inciter, are you smoking krak?
1WineDude -
YES. You're looking for "15 minutes of fame". You're getting a lot more than 15 minutes, but it's what you want. I'm not anonymous. My name is Samuel Maverick, just like the cowboy of TV/movie fame. I don't have a blog though. YES, I told you politely to STFU. Stop This Flagrant Un-civility. How is that any different from you calling me a troll? Also, if you're "not going to respond to me directly", then why do you keep responding to me directly? I guess this is "impacting you in the slightest" just a bit. YES. Your posts scream of entitlement with your responses to the editors, your non-acceptance of their answers, and your general attitude. Plus your claim for the need of "one on one discussion" with a "PR contact". Elitist entitlement. You're doing this to keep your name on the current page of this thread, hoping to gain hits on your blog. YES. I am clever in my "pronouncements". You can't get past what I say because you are you. I'm sorry for that. YES. I'm absolutely sure that's what I'm saying. Are you sure of what you're saying?
The rest of the 1-time posters are mostly gone. Some new ones have popped up since. I haven't treated anyone else like I have you because they were all here for their 1-time shot of negativity, and now they're gone. You, like I said before, just keep extending your exposure, trying to support your elitist entitled "brand" as a certified, blogging wine expert (with lots of "driving forces"). You have no interest in the awards. You have interest in calling out WS for what has happened.
YES. You're looking for "15 minutes of fame". You're getting a lot more than 15 minutes, but it's what you want. I'm not anonymous. My name is Samuel Maverick, just like the cowboy of TV/movie fame. I don't have a blog though. YES, I told you politely to STFU. Stop This Flagrant Un-civility. How is that any different from you calling me a troll? Also, if you're "not going to respond to me directly", then why do you keep responding to me directly? I guess this is "impacting you in the slightest" just a bit. YES. Your posts scream of entitlement with your responses to the editors, your non-acceptance of their answers, and your general attitude. Plus your claim for the need of "one on one discussion" with a "PR contact". Elitist entitlement. You're doing this to keep your name on the current page of this thread, hoping to gain hits on your blog. YES. I am clever in my "pronouncements". You can't get past what I say because you are you. I'm sorry for that. YES. I'm absolutely sure that's what I'm saying. Are you sure of what you're saying?
The rest of the 1-time posters are mostly gone. Some new ones have popped up since. I haven't treated anyone else like I have you because they were all here for their 1-time shot of negativity, and now they're gone. You, like I said before, just keep extending your exposure, trying to support your elitist entitled "brand" as a certified, blogging wine expert (with lots of "driving forces"). You have no interest in the awards. You have interest in calling out WS for what has happened.