As we begin a new year there seems to be a growing obsession with the state of wine journalism. The shrinking of print media over the past few years has certainly altered the landscape, and the rise of the wine blogger has somewhat reshaped it.
Then there was the Natalie MacLean (popular in Canada, not so well known in the U.S.) kerfluffle over the use of reviews written by colleagues that were posted on her personal website, without their permission and often with vague attribution.
And finally there was the interminable navel gazing over the meaning and impact of famed wine critic Robert Parker’s decision to sell an interest in his newsletter, The Wine Advocate, to investors from Singapore.
What we seem to have lost sight of is the purpose of wine journalism, which is to inform the public. Some journalists accomplish this through the telling of a good story, what my good friend Bruce Schoenfeld would call the "narrative." Others choose to analyze and critique, the purpose being to steer folks to good wines. Still others do both.
Parker was unique among us because he came along at a time, in the early 1980s, when the mission was not being served very well. He filled a void, and the so-called "trade" embraced him and his 100-point rating scale, which quantified his degree of approval for the wines he reviewed.
The Wine Spectator came on the scene at about the same time, but its focus seemed to be on California (if memory serves) while Parker’s strength was Bordeaux, which had emerged as the world’s most coveted of collectible wines, in no small way propelled by Parker’s exuberance over the remarkable 1982 vintage.
So Robert Parker was the right man in the right place at the right time.
His 100-point scale (introduced I believe at about the same time The Wine Spectator went to the scoring system) has become controversial over the years, a backlash perhaps to the reluctance of many consumers to accept wines that fail to fetch a score in the 90s.
That’s too bad because I find it useful and I believe it serves the public interest. When I first started to review wines in 1991 at the San Diego Union-Tribune, I chose not to rate wines with a numerical score. I changed my mind after becoming convinced readers really did want to know which one of those three recommended Cabernets I liked best.
I have read much recently about the demise of the wine writer and the death of the 100-point scale. I don’t think either is in the offing. Indeed, there are more people writing about wine now than at any time since I entered journalism some decades ago. As for the 100-point scale, I still think most people get it.
Here at Wine Review Online, we will continue to strive to do the things wine journalists should do. That means we will tell you the story behind the wine, we will tell you about the wine, and we will tell you how much we like the wines we are writing about.
I firmly believe there is an audience for what we do. Every year for the past several years, WRO has recorded about a million annual visitors. We don’t take their loyalty lightly. Our goal is to inform our readers and hopefully guide them to wines that are worthy of attention.
It’s not rocket science. I’ve tasted this wine, I liked it. Maybe you will, too. It’s no more complicated than that.
8