Comments on: Wine Spectator Award Scam-Axes to Grind?

By: Greybeard

Greybeard — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:15:21 +0000

Thanks Tim, obviously my piece has managed to fit into the “upset both parties equally” category – possibly my British penchant for reserved sarcasm failed to make its impact although I would have thought the Shakespeare reference made it clear this was not a simple defense of the Spectator’s stance. However maybe I should take solace that we have not not suffered the assorted slings and arrows of outrageous comment that other blogs received in their coverage of the story.
Shame on me? for trying to balance both sides?…so be it.

By: TIm Naylor

TIm Naylor — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:52:53 +0000

There was nothing unethical about the hoax. It exposed what the public otherwise thought was a well vetted awards process. People make judgements and spending decisions based on the veracity of Wine Spectator’s Awards. By revealing they have absolutely no epistemic integrity, Goldstein has done a public service. What you also fail to mention is that Goldstein discovered the 87 percent of WS reviewed wines score above 80. That aside, even if the Wines listed all scored 90 or above it doesn’t change the fact that WS awarded a sham restaurant and the extent of its fact checking was a visit to Chow Hound.

Matthews shouldn’t defend the hoax his awards pull on the public but instead recite his mea culpa and list of reforms. For now, I’ll never buy another copy. If awards of excellence can be bought it makes you reel at what other reviews or scores may have been purchased.

Shame on you for trying to purge the whistleblower. Would business as usual be better?

By: Greybeard

Greybeard — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:21:10 +0000

Thomas, thanks for the comment. The piece was written in the hope of being as objective as possible (which I hope doesn’t mean “upset both parties equally”)!

The goal of Reign of Terroir is to inform, educate and advance wine knowledge. We are a young blog but we have no axe in need of grinding and I hope this and other posts – past, present and future – will confirm this.

I hope the changes implied in the Awards program improve its perception in the wine community – if that is the net result of this episode then it will be good for everyone.

Best Wishes,

Karl Laczko

By: Thomas Matthews

Thomas Matthews — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:37:32 +0000

This is the most objective analysis of the scam I’ve yet read, including from such paragons of MSM as the NY Times, LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle.

To “ryan” – NONE of the wine blogs that pounced so gleefully on the story bothered to contact Wine Spectator for a comment; that’s what Molesworth means by “lazy.”

Yes, we have been hoaxed, and yes, it will result in changes in our Restaurant Awards program. Nonetheless, I stand by the belief that our awards have encouraged restaurants to improve their wine programs, and helped wine lovers find restaurants that share their passion. What’s so bad about that?

Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator

By: ryan

ryan — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:54:34 +0000

I just want James to name some blogs that he has visited that are so lazy.

As to the award, it was a joke in the industry when I started 10 years ago, and this just goes to show things don’t change.