Irreverent gastronomic bad-boy Anthony Bourdain was a guest on Michael Feldman's Whad'ya Know? this weekend. Somewhere in the midst of the meandering interview, he responded to a question about who is "the worst villain to ever walk the planet..." with this:
"Any critic who claims to be an honest broker of opinion; who is accepting or soliciting free...goods and services from his victims - I mean subjects - ...that's somebody I'm not going to like very much."
He could just as easily be a vintner talking about wine writers...
Only rarely do writers covering wine dig into their own pockets to buy the wine they review. A wild guess? Probably 60% of the wines reviewed on this site in the last year were received as samples. That number will be closer to 75% this year. And it’s closer to 100% for most print publications and popular blogs.
If you believe that the action of spending money on a product is fundamental to the assessment of its value, then isn’t a critic’s credibility diluted when their perspective lacks something so...vital?
Wait a second, some wine writer will say with sanctimonious indignation, I have unique qualifications that make me an impartial judge of quality regardless of who paid for the wine. I am an ethical professional above reproach and take exception to the question.
If you're rolling your eyes and laughing now, then you get it. If you’re frowning and shaking your head in disagreement, then you’re probably a wine writer.
Two things worth drawing into focus here: First, value and quality aren’t the same thing. Value is a function of quality, experience, availability, other intangibles, and price. Quality is exclusive of those other factors, price in particular.
Car & Driver only did feature articles on cars their writers had purchased. It would be a very short, very boring magazine. In any given month a professional wine writer tastes dozens, if not hundreds of wines. And given the meager wages (shameless donation solicitation) journalism pays these days, a wine writer can't afford to buy all those wines anymore than Car & Driver writers can afford the new Ferrari 458 Italia.
Here’s kind of a funny story that's related to all this: For shits and giggles, a non-scientific experiment was conducted at a recent trade event which included many wine writers/reviewers. We asked two very similar, yet different questions of attendees. First one was "Which of these wines do you like?" You may as well fasten your seatbelts and hang on for the ride - especially when you're surrounded by rivers of high-end wine (as usually is the case at these things). But the second question was "Which of these wines would you spend your own money on?"
So, where does that leave us? Are all wine writers corrupted? Of course not. But the concepts here make the argument that casual bloggers are undervalued. The guy or girl who does pay for their wine has a perspective that is closest to that of the audience. And if you think that the non-professional observer is somehow less qualified to share their thoughts, then consider this:
At the end of the day, we are all just assholes. Assholes with opinions.
The bottom line is that anyone reviewing something they did not shell out their hard-earned shekels for is going to be less demanding and more generous. Reviewers need access to product - which might dry up if they don’t play nice. Which is why so little mainstream reviewing is truly, well, critical. Does that mean that you really can’t trust any wine writers (including this one) as the title of this post suggests? Okay, maybe that’s a bit overboard, but if you – as a consumer – look to wine reviews for guidance on value, then you should consider adjusting downward much of the scores you read out there.
Either that, or start including more self-funded, independent reviews in your intake.