Tish, or W.R. Tish if you prefer, is author of the irreverant Wine For All website and former Editor of Wine Enthusiast Magazine. Wine For All attempts to inject an element of humor into the serious discussion of wine, and it largely succeeds even though I don’t personally agree with all of the off-beat positiions Tish takes.
Tish also avidly monitors wine blogs and was a frequent commenter, as a subscriber, on the Wine Spectator blog. Most of you know the Wine Spectator as the national wine publication rivaled in influence only by Robert Parker’s newsletter, the Wine Advocate.
It seems Tish was poking WS Columnist Jim Laube in the ribs with the suggestion WS publish alcohol levels along with its wine reviews when WS suddenly pulled the plug on Tish’s postings.
He tells the story in his monthly newsletter, which is emailed and requires a subscription (click here):
“I got kicked off the Wine Spectator blog comments board this summer too! Yes, I am officially persona non grata, after responding strongly in response to Jim Laube’s inane two-part post about Napa Cabernet-maker Randy Dunn’s ‘open letter’ to the industry regarding rising alcohol levels in wines (read more), particularly in his own ‘hood.
I may never really know exactly what the tipping point was (perhaps it involved the word ‘cop-out’?), but basically I challenged JL and WS in general to take Dunn’s suggestion that alcohol levels be included in reviews. Laube’s second post, which referred to ‘one reader’ (apparently moi) making that point, rejected the notion simply because alcohol-by-volume measurements by definition are imprecise. My point was: SO WHAT? The percentages printed on labels are accepted as legal data, and moreover represent the only concrete alcohol information we have at our disposal. I added that I thought the real reason WS wouldn’t want to do this might be that people would see a clear correlation between high scores and high alc wines. Duh!
In sum, Wine Spectator doesn’t like non-fawners bothering their thin-skinned critics. I had been an earnest contributor to the Spectator blog boards for months, and in fact at several points had had certain posts rejected-with explanation. I did not always agree (for instance, they nixed my comment asking James Laube to explain why he called Kendall-Jackson’s $100+ Cardinale a ‘ Bordeaux knockoff’ when it seems no more of a cheap copy than any other Napa Cab-Merlot), but whatever. On the other hand, when I caught James Suckling throwing around ratings like confetti, seemingly in conflict with ‘official’ ratings of the same wines in the WS Buying Guide, the blog editors actually went back and inserted ‘(non-blind)’ after each of his flaming numbers, to make the distinction obvious. Most important of all, I participated in the boards under my own name (albeit misspelled as Willim Tisherman) and never even once referred to my pen name, my web site, my past position or my current status in the industry; I was a subscriber, period.
I can live without being part of the WS blog boards, but the surreally hilarious part of my getting the ol’ cyberspace heave-ho is the fact that I have now been erased completely from WS blog history. ALL of my past posts (20+, I estimate) evaporated, not unlike the way Communist regimes used to erase all mention of historical figures they didn’t want people to read/hear/think about. I was told this total removal was a technical issue, not a political statement. Maybe so, but it certainly fits with the Spectator’s well-earned reputation as an 800-lb. gorilla.”
What everyone should remember about the Wine Spectator is that it doesn’t derive its clout from any particular expertise that can’t be found elsewhere. It’s important only because wine wholesalers and retailers use its ratings to sell you thousands, even millions, of cases of wine.
That could have been you getting the old heave-ho! Makes you wonder if those guys truly understand the source of their extraordinary power.
8