Originally posted by wineismylife:
The one hit wonders keep rolling in. I find it fascinating some of the information they have that's not been posted here before.
Why don't all of you losers go back to eBob or Goldstein's blog site where you came from to begin with? You'll find a more receptive lynch mob there.
Actually, I learned of this because a Web site for journalists linked to it. In our line of work, there is a clear "separation of church and state" between advertising and editorial content that's meant to serve the readers' best interests. So naturally, some of us there find Wine Spectator's $250 fee an affront to everything we believe in. An "award" ought to be freely given without any financial reward to the publication. Ads ought to be clearly labeled as such. It's simply a matter of being honest with readers whether profit influences the ratings. It's an extremely important distinction, and if you can't see that, you'll have to explain why.
If you have something of substance to argue, other than whether people have the right to an opinion that differs from yours, attack on point. Otherwise, you come off as an Internet bully who is intolerant of true discourse.
You may see this as a wine issue. But in my field, we take particular offense to lapses like Wine Spectator's because people tend to judge all of us by the mistakes of a few. And those who cross that line need to know that their peers deeply resent their malfeasance and the tremendous difficulty it causes the rest of us. No doubt there will now be some obligatory shots at the media by people who've never spent a day working in it. This may come as a shock to the uninfomed, but there are many of us who take any transgression by any publication very seriously indeed because it affects every publication's credibility.