Remember earlier today, when I said it was “Non-Post Week” here at 1WineDude.com?
Ok, so I lied.
Well, I didn’t intend to lie, it just, kind of… you know… happened.
I’m interrupting (already!) our previously scheduled ‘Non-Post’ week non-event to share with you a link to my buds over at Wine Biz Radio, who were kind enough to have me on today’s episode of their radio show / podcast, where I discuss my thoughts on the recent Wine Spectator chaos, as well as my recent experience “interacting” in their on-line forum (a.k.a, “the snake-pit“).
Check it out here: http://winebizradio.com/articles/winebizradio-20080825/ .
Ok. Back to not posting. I promise this time!
Welcome to “Non-Post Week” here at 1WineDude.com.
This week, I will not be writing any posts (aside from this brief bit of introduction, anyway). Instead, I will be taking a mini-vacation from writing, and will offer up wine-related images that I’ve taken over the years.
This is not to showcase my photography skills – which are, at best, modest. It’s to offer a slightly different angle on wine blogging, and (hopefully) provide insight into what it’s like to be the Dude and how he looks at the strange and wonderful world of wine.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, well, then it’s worth an average 1WineDude.com blog post! Cheers – and see you next week!
By now, many of you will already have heard about the controversy surrounding Wine Spectator’s restaurant awards that unfolded into the mainstream media this week.
This topic is getting about as visible a media treatment as the wine world ever gets, so I won’t rehash the complete story here. To get us all up to speed and on the same page, the sequence of events goes something like this (in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, “Let me explain. No – is not time; lemme sum up!”):
Regardless of which side of this issue you stand, if you’re like me you’re probably scratching your head as to why WS chose an on-line forum post as the, well, forum to use for publishing their defense of the Restaurant Awards process. Especially considering that this event is all over the news right now.
I can vouch for this personally…
In my attempts to open a discource with the editors of WS (to better understand why their initial response did not include any details regarding if/how the Awards process would be examined to ensure it maintains credibility), I had to go to the WS forums. After all, that’s where the WS editors posted their response in the first place.
I (and other wine bloggers) have been greeted there with a negativity unbecoming of a long-running institution such as WS. While the editors, for the most part, have been civil in their responses, some of the forum members have been downright nasty. I’ve had to endure blogging being dismissed as “lazy journalism,” and having my SWE and CSW credentials called fakes. Little (if any) moderation seems to be taking place in the forum at the moment, and new forum members are told to “STFU” and “go away.” Even senior WS editor James Suckling seemed to get into negative mode when addressing particularly vehement criticism on the forum.
Of course, not all of the forum members are acting in a negative way, but enough are being malicious to prevent an appropriate discourse with the WS editors. When I asked the forum members why new posters were greeted with that level of negativity, I was told it’s the equivalent of “initiation.”
Hazing is more like it.
Here’s my simple plea to the editors of WS:
If you’re going to allow your on-line forums to be the equivalent of a shark tank, then please put your response to Goldstein’s criticism into the hands of a PR director, where it belongs. Otherwise, those of us looking for constructive, open discourse on the topic of WS’ restaurant awards have nowhere to turn.
As long as your on-line forum remains the primary vehicle for your response to the Goldstein event, you will be promoting the impression that you are not taking the matter seriously.
It’s not events like this that make or break your credibility; it’s your response to events like this that make it or break it.