Wine Spectator Restaurant Guide
I don't usually repost the nonsense that's zipping along the grapevine but this is good stuff. A guy made a fictional restaurant with a small Internet presence (a website, some reviews on chowhound) and a phone number.
He comes up with a huge wine list that includes some of the lowest-rated Italian wines of the past century according to Wine Spectator. He then submits his restaurant to the WS restaurant guide with a $250 application fee.
He gets an award of exellence. Nice. Very nice.
Now, what we should draw from this is that Wine Spectator is not a journalistic source in this mess. It's just a republisher of information. A real periodical would have had somebody on the ground to make sure the restaurant even existed. But it's a big magazine and they have some sections that are fluffier than others.
That said, I have a large amount of respect for The Wine Spectator because they rated the wines I sent them. They had no obligation or financial incentive. They just have some reviewers who were willing to taste and evaluate some new wines from O'Vineyards. That means that they're cool in my book.
blog post by the award-winner: http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
wine spectator's response: http://forums.winespectator.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6826053161/m/835102245
Labels: award, chowhound, critic, criticism, journalism, o'vineyards, restaurant, review, wine, wine spectator
posted by Ryan O'Vineyards @ 6:13 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
I think it's important to note that Goldstein made two significant omissions that, in my book, were flat out dishonest.
First, he implies that all he did was submit a list. However he also set up a phone line, registered on googlemaps, and forged reviews on Chowhound dating back 8 (!) months.
Second he chooses to highlight the Reserve List of terribly rated wines, but by the WS's account, those 12 wines were part of a 256-wine list, which was well-organized, comprehensive and included only 15 wines TOTAL below 80 points. Sure, the WS may have made a blunder by choosing to overlook the 4% of wines on the reserve list that were poorly scoring, but Goldstein completely skirted around the merit of the bulk of his list.
To borrow a phrase (from winestein I think): "neither side comes out smelling like roses", but in my view, only one side deliberately attacked the other and then misrepresented the facts.
Unfortunately, Goldstein's story is so much more catchy than the truth, so it's what people will remember.
It's true, rajiv. But also keep in mind that a journalistic source should be publishing verified information. Their wine reviews are verified. Their wine articles are verified. Their restaurant awards are apparently not.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home