JohnL

It is not the Wark Communications website (basically an online brochure) that has made Tom Wark one of the most well known names in online wine writing, it is the daily posts on his blog. Through his blog he has gotten paid writing gigs and is now widely quoted in trade magazines (Wine Business Monthly quoted him in two separate articles on various wine related topics in the current issue). Eventually this has to trickle down to his PR business. This success was not due to simply throwing a conventional site up on the web and waiting. Conventional, static websites are about as compelling as watching the grass grow. It took time, dedication and effort. It took blogging. I beg to differ (on the ideology count, he is indeed thoughtful), and so does Joe Dressner who won’t even set foot in a room that Tom Wark is in. Tom has a definite take on the French wine industry, the three tier system, terroir and spoof. There is an ideology to his posts because he is human and his blog allows this to show through. Sometimes he posts about his personal life. It makes his writing compelling and authentic. I discount people who say they are completely objective. Just give me your unadulterated worldview and let me draw my conclusions from there. Also, let me give you a bit of perspective from someone in the wine industry. Blogs are more than just a vehicle to share thoughts and opinions; they are also a way to connect with potential customers and to tell a story. Blogs are more personal and focused than a message board, and they still allow for the same level of interaction via comments. Further, blogs have more “Google Juice” than static sites and message boards, which makes being found and read much easier. One final example and I’ll sign off. Yesterday I posted about a new company called TurnHere that offers filmmaking services to business wanting to market themselves via online video. I was critical of one of their productions, and said it was cheesy and an example of poor storytelling, but that I thought that the overall concept was good. Three hours after my post the Senior VP of Sales contacted me, thanked me for mentioning the company, and said he took my comments as a challenge and that he’d love to help us tell our story. That, in short, is the power of blogs. Voices are heard, and beneficial conversations are started from both the consumer and the business perspective. Josh Edited for spelling ← "woefully misinformed"? Please! I know Dresner and Wark have opinions. I was commenting on the thoughtfulness of their writing and the fact that for the most part, they do not resort to shallow rants.. I don't understand what your point is about their not being able to be in the same room. I believe that you are greatly inflating the effect, and impact of blogs and blogging. Yes a "conventional" website does have some importance--they are sources of information as well as a means to transact business. How one's opinions expressed in the vast internet are somehow more effective is beyond me. IMOP--the wine industry is greatly out of touch with the general public. Everyone is talking to each other. (I'm "in the industry" too) The self importance is incredible. The number of non industry people who visit wine blogs (not general websites) is miniscule. Again, a well written thoughtful blog is good. No problem there. However, a general forum like eGulletcan at least point one toward blogs that are worthwhile. Otherwise one could spend thousands of hours tasting the "googlejuice" in search of the handful of worthwhile opinions in the huge mounds of wasted/trite bandwidth out there.

Are you referring to The Wine Advocate? Perhaps The Wine Spectator? Isn't this what they mostly do? ← I'm really confused here! First you write of Mr Rogov's examples "...I don't see what's wrong with any of these notes." Then here you complain about notes that don't tell you anything about the wine. which is it? also what exactly is wrong with the notes in the WS or the WA? Or are you saying these publication notes are to your liking?

It is not the Wark Communications website (basically an online brochure) that has made Tom Wark one of the most well known names in online wine writing, it is the daily posts on his blog. Through his blog he has gotten paid writing gigs and is now widely quoted in trade magazines (Wine Business Monthly quoted him in two separate articles on various wine related topics in the current issue). Eventually this has to trickle down to his PR business. This success was not due to simply throwing a conventional site up on the web and waiting. Conventional, static websites are about as compelling as watching the grass grow. It took time, dedication and effort. It took blogging. I beg to differ (on the ideology count, he is indeed thoughtful), and so does Joe Dressner who won’t even set foot in a room that Tom Wark is in. Tom has a definite take on the French wine industry, the three tier system, terroir and spoof. There is an ideology to his posts because he is human and his blog allows this to show through. Sometimes he posts about his personal life. It makes his writing compelling and authentic. I discount people who say they are completely objective. Just give me your unadulterated worldview and let me draw my conclusions from there. Also, let me give you a bit of perspective from someone in the wine industry. Blogs are more than just a vehicle to share thoughts and opinions; they are also a way to connect with potential customers and to tell a story. Blogs are more personal and focused than a message board, and they still allow for the same level of interaction via comments. Further, blogs have more “Google Juice” than static sites and message boards, which makes being found and read much easier. One final example and I’ll sign off. Yesterday I posted about a new company called TurnHere that offers filmmaking services to business wanting to market themselves via online video. I was critical of one of their productions, and said it was cheesy and an example of poor storytelling, but that I thought that the overall concept was good. Three hours after my post the Senior VP of Sales contacted me, thanked me for mentioning the company, and said he took my comments as a challenge and that he’d love to help us tell our story. That, in short, is the power of blogs. Voices are heard, and beneficial conversations are started from both the consumer and the business perspective. Josh Edited for spelling ← Well glad you mastered the application process. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Blogs can be fine. ideology is good--opinions are good. Ill formed and supported opinions and poor writing are not good. there are some good blogs and many more bad ones. No big deal. I am wondering what you mean by "throwing up a conventional web site and waiting..." also--what specifically does a blog accomplish that a "conventional web site does not--providing one can ascertain the difference between a blog and a conventional web site--or some hybrid. as for the "dumbing down of the discourse" --how many examples do you want? also--I was basically complimenting Joe Dressner and Tom Wark --mainly for their good writing and thoughtfulness. I know Mr Dressner and I have read enough of Mr Wark to have a thoughtful well formed opinion of their sites. Are you alerting us to some petty feud they are having or are you trying to make a point (I missed it). Yes blogs are more personal (I am not so sure about the focused part) and therein lies a problem with the many bad ones. Everyone has an opinion these days and not everyone's opinion is interesting or adds anything new to the great conversation--that's why every novel is not published (and please --we all know of the handful of successful self published tomes). A winery website is a good business practice--consumers benefit from information. Consumers do not benefit from opinions that are nothing more than rants or pontification on topics that are well covered in myriad information outlets/media and/or poorly written tasting notes etc etc etc. And really--the vast majority of blogs are viewed by an infinitesimal audience. Not so the "more conventional" websites a few people seem to denigrate here. Again can anyone agree as to what the definition of a blog is? And shouldn't anyone with an ounce of skepticism wonder about a blog by a winery employee or retail operation? Amazing how people who make money selling wine are so quick to cast aspersion at independent writers, journalists etc. I also believe that a lot of the industry insider blogs (IMOP some of the best blogs) are read mostly by------people in the industry. I honestly feel the wine industry is horribly out of touch with the marketplace--maybe because they are too busy reading each other's blogs (but I digress--actually I guess I blog!). Anyway--feel free to blog away! I am not trying to make a case that blogging is inherently bad or evil (unlike The Advocate and the Spectator folks). I will recognize the few good blogs and criticize the bad examples! One benefit of sites like eGullet is one can be alerted to potential excellence without having to wade through the astronomical heaps of wasted bandwidth out there on the "opinion highway."

Are you referring to The Wine Advocate? Perhaps The Wine Spectator? Isn't this what they mostly do? ← I'm really confused here! First you write of Mr Rogov's examples "...I don't see what's wrong with any of these notes." Then here you complain about notes that don't tell you anything about the wine. which is it? also what exactly is wrong with the notes in the WS or the WA? Or are you saying these publication notes are to your liking?

You're much too kind, JohnL. Please keep that comment in mind below. ??! (See above.) Sure enough, I remember that too. But good-bad wasn't the distinction in my posting.Now I'm a fifth-gen. northern-California native happily following California wines since becoming interested in wine (middle 1970s). Fellow tasters older than I did so since the 1950s. Posting above is my view of the evolution of the premium California wine scene. When I observe, as carefully as I recovered the Boston quotation, that today's "cult" Cabernets differ from those in the Spurrier era, and that I've seen them appeal to newer wine fans, not to people who bought California wines in the Spurrier era, I get consensus about this from everyone I know (recently I asked a roomful), yet get dispute from you and Squires (who both acknowledge hanging around one particular critic). I'm lectured that "Heitz and BV Reserve were cult wines in their time" yet I paid $50-$70 (2006 dollars) in their time, to ordinary merchants, for wines with track records. I distinguish this only from ultra-allocated labels today that sell for hundreds, or have existed only a few years so no one has seen them age, or that generate clamors unseen in 1976 (by this attentive witness anyway). That's a distinction, in many eyes. ← Max we are of the same era (very close anyway). a "cult" wine is a 'cult" wine regardless of the relativity of price. The market for fine wines has changed/evolved--the markets for many luxury products has changed as well. Heitz and BV Reserve were cult wines--it is demand and price not just price alone. (so was/is Petrus and many other wines from around the world). Today is different from yesterday. There was no internet for eg. The world wide wine market was much much smaller--there was far less competition for fine wines. Britain was still the key market for Bordeaux and there was little demand around the world for American wines. There certainly was little if any auction market here. Wine styles were different. wine styles have changed over the ages. California then vs now? Acres and acres of varietals were grown in the "wrong" places. it is fairly recently that growers and wine makers have begun to consider terroir when planting grapes. as for "hanging around with Parker..." Here's the deal. I read and subscribe to over a dozen various critics and writers. I have no particular obsession with him. I do see a contingency of people who seem to endow him with superhuman powers. These folks bring up Parker as some sort of anti-christ of wine whenever they want to rail about some evil they seem to see. I didn't even mention Parker in this thread until now (at least I don't think I did). I also know that Parker was a big supporter of California cabernets produced in the sixties and seventies. Why? Simple--just read his early tasting notes and descriptions as well as the vintage reports and other prose. So what exactly is the beef with Parker? As for your "consensus"--I don't doubt there are many people who prefer earlier times to today. Same holds true for car buffs, stereophiles, sports fans etc etc etc.--"they don't make em today like they did back then..." Every age sees many who look back wistfully at what was. There are usually at least as many who see only the bad. A few folks seem to be able to provide some perspective and take a more balanced view of things old and things new. Age worthy? Sure it is early to tell if some of today's wines will stand the test of time. It is also a fact that many wines from the so called "golden age" did not! Let's remember though that California wines have --as a general rule--always been riper more early maturing wines (compared to say--Bordeaux)--in general. I can say that IMOP--there are many Cabs from 84, 85, 91, 92 etc that are drinking beautifully right now. I just opened 91 and 92 Beringer and Mondavi Private reserves--IMOP these are all magnificent wines. Also the Chardonnays from Mount Eden and Hanzel from 96 and 97 are pure joy right now--pretty good age for a Cal Chard. I also know of no one who will debate that important advances in viticulture and viniculture have been made in the last twenty five years or so to the benefit of wine making in general. Anyway, to get back on topic--I believe that any re-enactment of the 1976 tasting would have little or no impact--the New World has long proven itself able to make world class wines. The French have always made world class wines and still do (the world is just larger today). Anyone who believes there is still something to prove by these silly contests--beyond a bit of jingoist fun--IMOP has an agenda--a bone to pick. cheers

Max-- You either have an amazing memory or quite a library! Your post prompted me to go back to Mr Taber's book--"Judgment of Paris" Unfortunately, many people will focus on the excellent reporting Taber does in covering the "event." What is special about the book is Taber also does a wonderful job in putting the event into context. In doing so there is a lot to be learned about the wine world at the time and how it has evolved. I find that today there is a sense among some that there were the "good old days" back then in California and then there is today. We tend to recall the good and forget the bad. While I remember many very fine examples from California (and Bordeaux) I also remember a lot of not so good and bad examples. Coupled with Taber's book (and some other resources) my own recollection and perspective is that maybe some things weren't so different. Were the California products of the sixties and seventies the result from "maverick's?" The terrific biographies of many of the early "pioneers" in Taber's book indicate otherwise. Many of the vaunted old wineries were bought and run by wealthy entrepreneurs in the sixties and seventies-- many of whom were from out of state. Not much different from the post seventies influx of wine makers and winery owners. Interestingly even in France Bordeaux Chateau were owned and operated by wealthy folks--many of whom made their money in outside the wine business. From the Bartons to the Rothschilds to Haut Brion etc. Same as today. Cult wines? There have always been cult wines (as long as there have been wines). One needs look no further than Petrus. As for California in the seventies and eighties Heitz was a "cult" wine and were the people who clamored for the winners of the Paris tasting any different from the folks lusting after (and driving up prices) Colgin and Screaming Eagle? There were probably fewer "cult" wines and smaller cults back then but then there were fewer wines available and fewer wine drinkers. It is also very interesting to note that according to Taber, Steve Spurrier believed that the California wines were to "too alcoholic" and over- ripe. Gee--isn't that the complaint about today's California wines? Yes tons of money poured into California in the nineties (same for many other winemaking regions around the world--look at the history of Margaux and the rise of the negocients in Burgundy etc. Wine styles have changed--fashion has always impacted the wine business. I would argue that it is science--viniculture and viticulture that has had the greatest impact. Today there are many more healthy wines produced (as a per cent of the total)--I have a list somewhere-- of all the bottles infected with Brett--I have just poured the last bottle of a case of 1986 Grand Puy Lacoste down the drain--at least five from the case ruined by unclean wine making. Lots of the seventies from Bordeaux were tainted. I also remember incredible bottle variation in cases of Cabernets from a lot of "cult" California producers from the seventies as well. (let's not even talk about Burgundy here). And I still have memories of bottles of Cal cabs that were huge tannic monsters that never came around--the fruit dried out. I also have memories of many very fine wines. When we talk about the "good old days" though, one need a little perspective. Same as when we lament the "current state of affairs."

Curious. I have attended numerous public tastings with Parker wherein wines were "retasted" blind. Same for Tanzer.

another ps Just to show I am trying to be fair here. I finally looked at Craig Camp's site/blog--I don't know what these things are really! To give credit where---- The tasting notes are very well done IMOP. a good example of tating notes that are professionally executed and engaging. (by the way Craig: what no scores?! lol) so ok--this is a pretty good site. the writing is very good--nice job it's just that there are so many sites--you almost have to "stumble" upon the good one's.

Whereas most tasting notes in established magazines are boring in the extreme. Do you think any average consumer reads more than one of these? Do you pore over every tasting note in WS or the Wine Advocate? No traditional magazine will allow a writer to play with the form, to move beyond the current stodgy norm (which is itself a fairly modern invention) and make wine tasting notes more accessible to the public. It is left to those without a "professional" voice to explore new avenues (or certain professionals--Karen MacNeil comes to mind as an advocate of more interesting tasting notes). Most won't be improvements, most will actually be worse than the standard, but there always has to be some avenue for people to push beyond what the mainstream accepts. Leaflets, newsletters, and zines were previous avenues, and blogs are the current manifestation. I'm not denying that the world of blogs is littered with bad writers and pompous opinions (nor would I contrast that with the published experts), but traditional media are just that--traditional--and rarely move beyond their established forms. I don't have to sell subscriptions (or even ads) on my blog, so I experiment and play to move beyond the standard wine tasting note I have to write for my clients. Because I'm convinced that the modern tasting note is fairly useless to most of the wine buyers out there. ← I don't mean to focus on tasting notes. But Tasting notes are meant to convey information about a wine. there is a science involved (contrary to what too many believe) it is not all subjective. Professional Wine tasting is science and art--objective and subjective to be sure. It requires training, knowledge and experience. when we discount training, experience and knowledge we end up the poorer for it! I believe that Daniel Rogov (more eloquently) and I are making the argument that there is a "dumbing down" taking place (exacerbated by the proliferation of blogs etc. Accessibility is one thing and is much welcome but lowering the bar is quite another. I gave an example of a dumbed down approach from a blog when I referenced a note (I forget the site) about a peachy Canyon zinfandel. Anyway--the "experimentation" you reference is fine but sometimes I feel like I am watching someone learn the violin--I prefer to hear that person when they have gone through the formal training and are deemed worthy of Carnegie Hall (I will also pay happily).

I am trying to think of something to say about this question, but I am left speechless. ← you'll think of something! Actually, i believe it was Daniel Rogov who asked. anyway the point being -- the reality is there are relatively few people who are interested in wine to the degree that they are going to read blogs. (or anything really). I believe that a small group of people who would identify themselves as enophiles exists and consumes a disproportionate amount of the wine info and writing available. Thus a lot of writers are sort of talking to themselves and each other and most bloggers are just talking to themselves. The enophiles are the folks who get all worked up over "globalization" and points and terroir etc. That's my theory at least. There is a much larger group of wine lovers who simply enjoy drinking wine and are not "philes" These folks may read an article or two once in a while and may even read a book or a guide. That's it--they are also not much concerned about micro-oxygenation etc. In fact, I believe if these people read a few blogs or visited a forum, they would scratch their heads maybe chuckle and get on with their lives. These are the people who represent the general public! The wine industry IMOP has little understanding of these people--but that's another thread for another day! cheers by the way--someone told me about an Italian winemaker--Doriko? also Perka (spelling may be off. Do you know these guys' efforts?

as a sort of ps to my earlier post: I do want to reiterate that there are some well done blogs--Wark is pretty good. but a lot of that is due to his being part of the industry and the fact that he has a more "conventional" website that happens to offer a "blog." He also is not ideological in his approach to major issues and is reasonably thoughtful. By the way--I belive I "discovered" Wark because of either Mary or Craig here at eGullet. I am not anti blog--but someone has to provide some critical perspective!

A while back in this thread, a question was posed: What new thinking or perspective is being added by these blogs? Take the glut of books, journals, newsletters, columns, articles and web sites already established. I also would add a few (very few) handful of blogs that provide some inside the industry perspective or are highly focused on one or two aspects--technical or local info etc. Now: Everyone of the many blogs I have looked at offer regurgitated / recycled /rehashed takes on ideas, thoughts, conventional wisdom that is already out there in so called mainstream or established sites--books, web sites, articles etc etc etc. There is precious little new information or perspective and little commentary that warrants wading through the literally tons of stuff on the web. I agree, there is plenty wrong with a lot of the wine writing today (the mainstream media reporting can be awful) but as I see it the web blogs are just amplifying it (and in most cases making it even more muddled). I have looked at tasting notes by self proclaimed enophiles that are atrocious--poorly written and confusing. I have seen issues large and small discussed with "authority" by people who are clearly mis and worse un informed. Snobbery and reverse snobbery--rampant! Whatever problems there are with the established thinking--multiply by a hundred and you have the current ate of web blogs. again--there are precious few good one's/ there are several more valuable sites offering local or technical information and perspective--let's credit these. But when one offers that "things are getting better..." and looks forward to more--remember right now there are thousands of blogs on wine I shudder! Finally--I guess I am asking why would anyone need to go beyond the books, magazines, journals, newsletters, established web sites and forums and wade through the wine blogs?

Yesterday's New York Times had a piece on how Whole Foods is launching a campaign--advertising etc--to inform people that their prices are not as high as many think. (maybe someone with some skills can post a link) Anyway it was noted that WF prices are not higher than TJ's (or other markets etc). I am not adverse to chains--they do have some good points/benefits but I believe we are reaching a point where the homogenization is removing the uniqueness of our neighborhoods. New York is losing its neighborhoods. The Trader Joe's silliness--much ado about --well not nothing but--certainly not enough to warrant the press and the lines and the..... is an example of this. I understand the TJ's (and others) appeal and benefits for the suburbs and smaller communities but I am beginning to wonder if these operations are really that beneficial to a large urban center like New York replacing small individually owned and family owned businesses--the local butcher, baker etc. The chain thing--is mainly a result of thee higher and rapidly getting higher cost to do business. So we got one in Union Square and soon maybe Brooklyn and maybe one uptown and then in the Bronx and so on. Homogenized has its benefits but maybe the one big drawback is a boring world. I for one am tired of the schtick--the WF healthy items and their altruistic spiel and Trader Joe's quirky offbeat --we're so unhip we're hip attitude to get people to buy generic bulk stuff and weird items--it is all marketing (clever to a degree--yes). I miss just plain old markets with good stuff specializing in what they do best--and unique neighborhoods. I wonder if anyone shares these thoughts.

Assuming that lethal injection is also none too utilitarian for those who cook large volumes of these hapless creatures ... what would one inject them with anyway? Prozac? ← How about melted butter!?

You make some very good points! Your comparison of forums and blogs is right on. I believe that forums are more apt to provide better information than blogs. Plus a forum allows for differing viewpoints and they are, for the most part, more interesting more dynamic. To me, blogs can offer interesting or good perspective but most fall short in the other areas.

← The Wine Spectator gave it a 90! Laube said it was like "lobster in a glass!" I assume it goes well with.......seafood! Does this mean fishermen will be lobbying for a "Bodega Bay" appelation/AVA?

We offer a service called eG Foodblogs, where one of our members blogs for a week or so. We like this approach because the most interesting people often don't have the time to write an infinite-duration blog, but they'll blog for a week and we reap the benefits. There's a term that hasn't gained much traction, "clog" (community blog), that might describe our eG Forums offering. Most people just call that "forums" or "boards," though. Of course we have many other offerings: we publish an online literary journal or webzine (the Daily Gullet), we have our online culinary institute (eGCI), we have our eG Radio foodcasts, we have eG Spotlight conversations, we offer food media digests, RecipeGullet, ImageGullet . . . we're pretty diversified. We're web 2.0, or so we're told. In terms of what we call ourselves, it has nothing to do with the web. We call ourselves a nonprofit organization, specifically a culinary arts society. Most of our offerings are online and focus on increasing awareness of the culinary arts and the literature of food and drink, but some, like the eG Scholarships program (which gave away $20,000 in culinary scholarships this year), are more like traditional philanthropy (our status, legally, is that we're a "public charity"). To get back to the main part of the topic, I've got to say I'm not sure anybody has raised any particularly compelling arguments against blogs. As far as I can tell, what we're hearing is that most blogs are bad, and a few are good. I assume every single person who has posted here agrees with that? If so, what's the problem? ← You just made a compelling argument--"most blogs are bad." I don't believe that anyone is arguing that somehow blogs should be outlawed. Perhaps Mary was on to something--maybe the critiquing of blogs is a good thing in helping to publicize the good and to point out problems with the bad. One thing is clear, the level of discourse is lowered by the proliferation of blogs overall. A price paid for the accessibility the net provides. Also the proliferation of blogs has accelerated the development and spread of "conventional wisdom." This can be a bad thing when that wisdom is based upon a faulty premise or when supported by erroneous "facts" or misinformation with malicious or innocent intent. (it can be difficult to tell). These problems exist with any medium--the web's breadth and sheer size simply magnify them and make it more difficult to counter. So, I believe that the discussion is a good one, and much needed. As with most topics here (or anywhere) most probably learned something (at least I did) and no concrete conclusions or solutions have been developed (par for the course). Interestingly, eGullet provided a somewhat unique forum wherein bloggers, people who work in the industry covered by bloggers, critics/writers from conventional media and just plain folks could "hash things out."

I thought that most states have declared electrocution inhumane! But then lobsters aren't human.

There is a total lack of focus and voice on this site. There are some very upfront conversations and a refreshing cleanliness--a lack of shilling, gremlins, and 'bots. It's sort of like a clean burger joint for wine conversation. Nice to wander into, but I would need some really juicy tidbits to entice me to return. It would benefit from more owner-author posts and comments. It has a few great links, including our own Mr. Daniel Rogov (Strat's Place), but when I looked for background or author information, I got this. Rating: Disorganized ← Agree. also I am totally confused--this is not a blog! it is a web site. If this is the #1 site then I really have to question the criteria used to rank these sites. the first question: Could someone recommend a good zin...? someone? who an anonymous person? why not just ask anyone --a neighbor for eg or someone at work--why bother with this site? awful read the tasting notes-- "2003 peachy canyon zinfandel from Paso Robles. I keep wishing I had the discipline to let my zinfandels age but that means not drinking them! this is not the biggest best zin of recent memory! But damn its good after a long day." This is what I (and others) am talking about--utter banality from faceless and obscure sources. Next!

Ya mean like the "Parker palate..." sometimes generalizations become "conventional wisdom" they are easy to accept easy to recycle. unlike toilet paper!!!

Caveman Bad writing and thinking is......well...bad writing and thinking. I recommend the brief discussion in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Wine. by the way--there is plenty of faulty thinking and writing out there not just in Blogs! I don't doubt that most bloggers are not good guys or gals or are even knowledgeable. I think maybe we are all overheated here (a bit). I am not really attacking blogs and bloggers--I am raising some problems/issues. that's all--really. As for the "wine for points" thing. well--see my posts in response to craig camp below--we could have a really good discussion of that one. maybe I will start a thread! best John

I honestly believe that I really don't have much new or refreshing insight to warrant a blog! Thanks though (I think). I like eGullet precisely because there is a built in audience--a relatively high quality one at that (there is a weeding out process here). I also like the feedback--the challenges from others. I agree that there are many fine blogs---I am not anti blog at all--I think I agree with Mr Rogov. (he should have a blog!--actually he does sort of). The problem is that the overall level of discourse on the internet is much lower than most other outlets. (this is a bad result or trade off for some good things--total freedom easy access etc). I have said over and over--the really good blogs IMOP are those by people who have some credentials--usually industry pros who often provide interesting perspective on various aspects of the wine world. The real problem blogs are mostly by "wannabees"--people who are trying to be wine critics or writers--first we have a ton of them already in print and broadcast--many great some not so great. Also many of these bloggers are uninformed--everyone's an expert or so tentative as to be not worth reading. Yes a few are excellent-- As for Parker and the WS etc. I subscribe to about a dozen newsletters and journals etc. (including Parker and the WS). To be honest--I cull a lot of information and advice. I was in marketing for twenty five years and now as a second career am in the wine business (retail sales) I am in the WSET diploma class (I have a level three certificate). I must say that I have never seen such an insecure business. Witness the obsession with Parker. Some warranted most completely off base. I am curious as to your "problem" with the Spectator. (perhaps another thread would be more appropriate). There are bloggers who believe that Parker must be countered--to stay on topic here. As if this were a noble crusade. There are any number of other writers/critics who have challenged Parker. I find this a rather dubious reason to blog. I also find your thought process to be fascinating--I disagree with it-- though I believe we are in the same place at the end. I am in total agreement with daniel Rogov from start to finish. The wine business is rife with insecurity--there is an amazing paranoia that has led a lot of people to attribute massive powers to Parker--he is worshipped and hated at the same time. I have found that a lot of retailers are incredibly ignorant of wine and worse do not understand consumers and really do not know how to sell wine as a result. Distributors are also a mixed bag. Wine makers are another animal altogether. They are like parents--all their kids and grand kids are worthy of our attention--even if some are ugly and untalented. Thus the critics and writers step in--consumers need help. In the end the blogosphere is just another place to get information the danger is to rely on it too much. (or take it too seriously).

I'm not sure your Batttle Writing arena works as well as you think. Getting into that arena--magazines, newspapers, and books, I suppose you'd argue--requires more than writing talent. In fact, it often seems to not require much writing talent at all. Timing, connections, and a unique perspective are all factors. Usually more important than one's ability to turn a phrase. Blogs offer another ticket into what you view as "legitimate" or "professional" writing. I got my first magazine assignment in part because of a writing sample from my blog (though, in retrospect, I'm not sure how that swayed the editor--I'm a much better writer now than I was then). I know of five or six food bloggers who now have book contracts--publishers drool when they see the built-in platforms of the better-known bloggers--and expect wine bloggers to follow suit soon. How are these folks not legitimate again? edited to fix a typo ← I am not in disagreement with you. All I am saying is there is a lot of writing on wine available from many sources. There are some blogs that are good--most are bad--really bad. I am talking about the diaries--the diatribes and the rants mainly. The accessibility of the webb has lowered the level of discourse--legitimacy? For the most part--one who is not educated enough to know better has no way of knowing if a blog is insightful or pure fantasy. I suppose that one should look to many sources for information etc as a safeguard. Again--I would ask the question that if a blogger is covering a topic then what are they offering? --that is new or fresh or not covered better elsewhere? The same question an editor or a webb master might ask when confronting a proposal.

Craig The wine industry has become obsessed with Parker and the Wine Spectator. First--it was/is the industry that slaps shelf talkers on every bottle of wine on the shelves. (in fact, this is often done without the accompanying notes--Parker at one time tried to control this practice). For any consumer who is more trusted to provide some guidance in buying wines? An independent critic or the wine maker, the distributor, the retailer???? If looking for guidance in buying and automobile is it not wise to look at Consumer reports or car and driver or should one just rely upon the salesman or the manufacturer? So after quoting Parker and the WS endlessly-- many of the same folks turn around and complain that people only follow Parker or the WS. In fact--wine makers themselves bask in good reviews then complain bitterly when they get a less than perfect score--or even when a critic doesn't review their latest offering. We have quotes from retailers who say they can't sell a wine if Parker doesn't review it highly and they can't sell wine if Parker doesn't review it at all. I would say the business has a problem selling wine period! Whose fault is this??? Your views of the American consumer are totally faulty--"American consumers are well proven followers" really? I didn't know that following some advice to try something was uniquely American. were not the British led by importers when buying Bordeaux for years and years? Did not the French actually (and really wisely) make their Bordeaux to please the British importers? There's a saying--The french made bordeaux for the Brits and Burgundy for themselves. so Americans are basically sheep when it comes to buying wine? Parker and the Spectator turn them into "obsessed madmen to try wines they have never tasted? really?! Well the key may be "try"--are consumers supposed to wander in aimlessly and buy anything? Is it possible that Parker and the Spectator are simply good at what they do? That maybe people like their recommendations/advice? (if they don't there are myriad other critics). No you folks would rather believe that people simply like only the wines they are told to like. That someone will actually drink something they don't like because someone --anyone--told them they should like it? That we will continually return to a restaurant we don't enjoy or like because the Times or Michellin gave it three or four stars? Why just Parker and the WS--why are you not railing against all critics? Why is a blogger's advice ok and Parker's not? This is why the wine industry is screwed up. there is a complete misunderstanding of consumers. You also have a complete misunderstanding of critics. It is because most retailers and all of their salespersons do not (in fact can not taste every wine they offer)--that people turn to critics for some guidance. It is why --so many use shelf talkers quoting scores! Parker isn't pasting them up--Laube or Kramer certainly are not! Advice in buying anything is good. The credibility of the advice giver is key. Do you think for a minute that if people who subscribe to any critic did not like the recommendations offered they would continue to follow that advice? You would be suprised to learn that most people who buy wine do not subscribe to Parker or read the WS. The vast majority in fact. Yet far too many people have bought lousy wine on the advice of wine salespersons or because it was a Grand Cru or because it was French or.....(I can't tell you how many times I listened to a wine maker shuck and jive about a poorly made wine). I am in total agreement with Daniel Rogov here. You can argue that the WS and Parker are bad for wine all you want--you ought to be arguing that any critic is not good. You ought to be wondering why a large part of any business believes that consumers are sheep--no wonder folks turn elsewhere for advice.

There is a weeding out process, just as there is for any kind of website. That's why we know about some blogs and not about others. ← Yes there is-- in the strict sense. It is terribly inefficient.--basically it is word of mouth. Not optimum for the blogger or the public.