67.52.62.34
Excerpt: ETHICAL ISSUES OF WINE CRITICISM: After that first, fateful trip to France, Parker was hooked on wine. While he did what he had to do to graduate as an undergrad and to pass the bar exam in 1973 (Pat’s French teaching put him through law school), Parker spent most of his time researching and tasting wine. He formed a wine-tasting group with a few people, some of whom are friends to this day, in order not only to try more wines, but also to help defray the cost of his wine purchases, which had gotten out of hand. Additionally, he read everything written about wine. What he slowly discovered was that there was not much practical information on which wines to buy, and the available information was – at least according to his young palate – not accurate.
Over the years Parker discovered that virtually all the wine writers were, in one form or another, compromised. They were “in bed with” what Parker would call the ‘wine industry,’ namely wine stores, chateaus, restaurants, etc. and thus engaged in what he considered serious conflicts of interest with regard to the wine information provided consumers. Thus, such writers would often promote wines which supported the industry and not the consumer. As he stated in a December 1986 article for Warfield’s magazine, “Almost all the wine books were written by people in the wine trade. The newspaper wine writing was dismal. You could tell someone sent someone on a free junket to South America and they’d come back and write these glowing wonderful stories about the next great wine to be made in Brazil. And then you pay for this stuff and you could see it was pure bullshit.” While most of the well-known wine writers were British, three west coast wine writers carried significant influence in the US, namely, Robert Finigan, a bay area restaurant and wine critic, and Nathan Chroman and Robert Lawrence Balzer, both of whom were wine writers for the Los Angeles Times. However, while contributing greatly to wine knowledge, these writers were also compromised by the wine industry, in Parker’s view, because they allowed themselves to be financially supported in various ways by wineries, restaurants, and wine retailers, especially in California.
By the late 1970s, Parker was convinced his tasting abilities were as good, if not better, than the writers whose notes he referenced while drinking wine with his tasting group. Also, he now knew all the so-called critics were provided free wine, trips, entertainment, etc., and that no truly independent wine critic represented the wine consumer. In 1978 he and Pat borrowed $2000 from his mother to launch the first issue of what was to become Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate. Using mailing lists borrowed from a few DC area wine retailers, the first mimeographed, stapled copy – free of advertisements from the first issue to today -- was sent free to 6,500 customers, resulting in a 10% response to the $10 annual subscription charge for six editions per year. While not what Bob and Pat had hoped for, this was enough to allow the launch of subsequent editions, and the Advocate was born. In a stroke of good fortune, the wine columnist for The Washington Post was on one of the mailing lists, and his curiosity was piqued. His September 1978 article entitled “An Ombudsman for the Wine Consumer” was the first press Parker received, and the article laid out the fundamental tenets of Parker’s ethical system with terms like “independent,” “Lone Ranger figure,” “truth-in-wine newsletter,” and “a work of passion,” as well as the substance of his famous 100 point rating system, subsequently adopted by most wine writers and critics.
It would not be until 1984 that Parker would leave his ‘safe’ job as in-house counsel for the Farm Credit Banks in Baltimore and devote full-time as a wine taster/critic, because until then revenues from the publication and magazine and newspaper wine columns were insufficient to allow him to leave his day job (though the publication did not turn a profit until later in the 1980s). Parker’s integrity in not advertising or accessing various and sundry emoluments and ‘freebies’ commonplace in the industry prevented an earlier emancipation. He paid all his own travel, entertainment, wine and meal expenses on the road and at home, accepted no free cases of wine from wineries (though he did accept unsolicited bottles for tasting only), did not stay in expense-paid rooms on winery property, did not attend industry events, had no financial interest in any wine store or winery, (though he formed a winery partnership with his brother-in-law in the early 90s, but he does not review the wines), went on no paid wine junkets, did not attend wine festivals, and was obnoxiously voluble in his criticism of such practices. In contrast, wine luminary Hugh Johnson was on Latour’s board; Michael Broadbent of Christies promoted wines auctioned by his employer; Chroman was financially involved with several California wineries he reviewed; and he and Balzer were known for the favors they extracted. It was as a result of Parker’s pugnacious opposition to such self-serving practices that they were first seriously showcased by David Shaw. In an August 1987 Los Angeles Times article entitled “Wine Critics: Influence of Writers Can Be Heady,” Shaw detailed the many conflicts of interest engaged in by various wine writers, and though unstated in this article, one had to conclude that Parker’s now monumental influence on wine-buying habits of the American consumer was a direct result of his ethical opposition to such anti-consumer bias. As RMP said in the December 2000 Atlantic Monthly article, “What I’ve brought is a Democratic view. I don’t give a shit that your family goes back to pre-Revolution and you’ve got more wealth than I can imagine. If this wine’s no good, I’m gonna say so.”
WINE ADVOCATE WRITERS ETHICS AND STANDARDS: During several in-depth interviews with Parker in March through May 2012 (the rest of which follows this article), he said the following with regard to his personal ethical standards: “Leading by example and planting the flag in moral high ground builds trust within an organization of any size, as well as organizational credibility with the outside world. I can only hope my example will result in other Wine Advocate writers following that lead, further helping define and enhance a foundation supportive of an active and shared vision and mission regarding our business ethics.” “Wine Advocate Writer Standards” are detailed on his www.eRobertParker.com website. Sections deal with “Independence,” “Hospitality and Entertainment Standards,” “Courage,” “Experience,” “Individual Accountability,” “Focus on Qualitative Issues,” and “Candor.” Parker makes the point that wine writers for The Advocate -- all of whom are independent contractors for various business reasons -- “are held to high but less stringent and demanding standards only with respect to accepting educational travel and hospitality to emerging wine regions,” and that he routinely tastes wines about which they write to “verify and monitor their reviews for accuracy.” Admittedly “the most difficult area” for any wine critic to monitor and control is that dealing with hospitality and entertainment. Even the perception of favoritism must be carefully assessed. He expects Advocate critics to “maintain rigid standards of independence and integrity” at all times, writing “democratically” and with “courage” about what is in the bottle – in vino veritas -- no matter its purported pedigree or cost. To this end, it is imperative “to taste extensively across the field of play … which means tasting every significant wine produced in a region or vintage before reaching qualitative conclusions,” as well as establishing “memory reference points for the world’s greatest wines.” All the Advocate writers are full-time tasters and well compensated, which helps ensure independent judgment and unassailable professionalism, further insulating them from temptations not to call wines as they see them. The ultimate ethical goal of Advocate critics is to represent honestly and courageously the interests of its readers, as well as never to shy “away from criticizing those producers whose wines are found lacking.”
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2013, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]