Hopefully it will be somewhat organized chaos, but I expect, geeky, controversial and entertaining chaos nonetheless.
For Episode 7 of The Punch Down, we’ve invited four guests. NO, that’s not a typo; including my co-host Tara and I, there will be six people on video for TPD Episode 7!
Tara and I have wanted to do multi-guest format show for months, and for September we’re finally pulling the trigger on it. We’ve got four intelligent and opinionated guests that we’ll throw on the virtual grill to discuss how the wine world is/isn’t/should be / could be leveraging its social media efforts.
- Meg Maker (regularly winning writing awards over at Makers Table)
- David Honig (the irrepressible editor of PalatePress.com)
- Ryan Opaz (formerly of Minnesota, formerly of Spain, now of Portugal and co-creator of Catavino.net)
- And a wild card: Rick Mulready, who isn’t in the wine biz but knows his way around social media as the creator of the Inside Social Media Podcast.
I’ve got controversial, pointed, and edgy questions planned for all of them. I just hope this one doesn’t go twelve hours or something, because things are for sure gonna get lively during this little soirée next week. So now I finally get to pretend that I’m Bill Maher and ask questions to each guest that then get the rest of them all fired up and arguing in (mostly) friendly ways. Awwwwww yeeeeeahhhhhhh!
Join us LIVE on Tuesday September 17 at 1pm Eastern (10am Pacific, 6pm UK) for geekery!
[ WARNING: following is one of my lengthy diatribes. If you’re the
lazy and impatient busy type, skip to the summary! ]
Do you believe that fine wines are multi-faceted?
What I mean is, do fine wines change over time, present different shades and complexities of aromas and flavors?
If you agree that fine wines are complex beasts, then I’m about to show you why it should logically follow that wine experts may not provide the best reviews of those wines.
Because if you also happen to believe in the truth-enlightening powers of scientific and statistically relevant data, then you cannot continue to hold onto the stubborn belief that traditional wine expert opinion always offers a superior summation of a wine to that provided by aggregate reviews in outlets such as CellarTracker.com. At least, you can’t do it without being Spock-raising-a-quizzical-eyebrow-at-you illogical. By the way, if you don’t believe in those truth-enlightening powers, then I’ve got some creationist “textbooks” to sell you, but let’s not get off track, okay?
Anyway… evidence actually supports the view that individual wine expert opinion is inferior to the wisdom of crowds when it comes to reviewing wines. It’s not that single-shot expert opinion in this field is somehow irrelevant or useless, but that it is less valuable than the opinion offered by an educated, engaged, passionate, and diverse group of people (which may or may not contain experts in their ranks).
Don’t believe me? Well, then, put down that copy of Wine Spectator for a second and hear me out. Because while the view that crowd-sourced wine reviews have merit has been called “propaganda” by wine writers as celebrated as Matt Kramer, looking less passionately and more logically at the act of reviewing suggests that it is the Kramers of the wine world who are spouting the propaganda when it comes to dismissing the wisdom of the crowd…
Read the rest of this stuff »
Here’s a (long-overdue) run down of some of my Answers.com Expert gig articles from August 2013, also known as “The Month That My Back Told Me To Go F—k Myself.”
On the Chardonnay front:
Inspired by a recent gig I did manning the social media ambassador duties for the 2013 Chardonnay Symposium (if you missed that, here’s a mad-jealous-rage-inducing recap for you):
For the beginners:
From the travels:
From the sample book shelf: