Mike Steinberger on Antonio Galloni's New Venture

[Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i]

Are there any other critics who run dinners or events like this? I know of WS and Gambero Rosso. Tanzer and IWC; Allen Meadows; Revue du Vin; Jancis?

Is access a concern? The Festa wineries were a hand-picked list. For a single event and considering AGs credentials, it doesn’t seem too much of an issue. But if it continues in future years with similar producers? Is there any reason AG would not aspire to growing the event to La Paulee proportions if approached by a viable organizer with adequate backing?

Couldn’t Parker have done the same thing years ago (or even tomorrow) with the top Bordeaux houses? Would anyone expect anything less than an excited readership, prepared to pay handsomely, and stellar attendance from a hand picked group of Bordelais…or even Rhone producers? What is it that RMP found (or continues to find)objectional about it, if anything?

RT

[Evan_Dawson]

@Keith Levenberg

@Evan Dawson

I’m confused as to why Parker’s past grandstanding even has to be relevant here. I mean, I understand the point, but independent of Parker, consider:

Galloni is hosting dinners on which he is making a profit, and the quality of the wines at the dinner – the wines that he reviews! – directly affects his ability to attract people to pay for the dinner.

There’s a whole lot to like about Galloni, and I trust people like Eric and Ken and others who have good things to say. But in terms of journalistic standards, there’s not a serious debate about this, right? Who cares what Parker said? This would be enough for me to cancel a subscription. But maybe, as a journalist myself, I missed the memo about changing standards. Sigh.

One other point: Galloni promises this won’t affect his ability to remain objective. That’s nice. I don’t think he’s lying or obfuscating. But we’re talking about human beings here. There’s a reason these standards (used to) exist: To make sure we’re not put in the position to be tested.

Fair points, but I guess the reason I can’t muster up the same indignation is that I’ve never really considered what most wine reviewers do to be real journalism in the first place. It’s not quite as whorish as, say, entertainment journalism, but it’s definitely in the same ballpark…

Yeah, perhaps I’m too hard-core. Fair enough.

[Jim_V_a_n_P_e_l_t]

@Graeme Gee

@WvanGorp

But Bob has been so vocal about not having such arrangements. In a recent exchange I saw with Eric LeVine on the Parker board, Bob stated that the main reason he didn’t want to partner with CT was that he wanted to remain “totally independent.”

And yet he’s quite happy to compromise in his deal with US Mail, who actually deliver his tatty little rag all around the country. The hypocrisy of it all…
GG

So, what’s he supposed to do? Hand deliver them? I’m missing your point and your comparative. Or maybe I just missed the sarcasm:)

[Eric_LeVine]

I think Graeme was being sarcastic…

[Ken_V]

@Jim Van Pelt

@Graeme Gee

@WvanGorp

But Bob has been so vocal about not having such arrangements. In a recent exchange I saw with Eric LeVine on the Parker board, Bob stated that the main reason he didn’t want to partner with CT was that he wanted to remain “totally independent.”

And yet he’s quite happy to compromise in his deal with US Mail, who actually deliver his tatty little rag all around the country. The hypocrisy of it all…
GG

So, what’s he supposed to do? Hand deliver them? I’m missing your point and your comparative. Or maybe I just missed the sarcasm:)

Wow Jim, if Eric got the sarcasm, how busted is your detector?

[Alan_Rath]

Well, I don’t think the approach Galloni took here is particularly smart, he could accomplish exactly the same result by simply having someone else organize the event, using his name as the draw. Then he’s one step removed, and I don’t think anyone would raise a question. Really too bad he didn’t do this from the start, since it’s hard to put the horse back in the barn.

[Mike_Miller]

1. The stench emanates first from huge gap between the confessed “principles” of TWA and AG’s loosened “I’m not a real journalist” ethics.

2. The conflicts of interest are real, though perhaps not large in terms of actual dollars. That being said, why compromise your reputation for a small sum. Seems like if you’re going to put a dent in your credibility – large or small – you ought to get something substantial for it.

3. Despite points 1 and 2, I’ll give AG a great deal of credit for transparency and knowing how not to loose his cool. Imaging is Parker and Squires had this much good sense!!

[Lewis_Dawson]

@Alan Rath

Well, I don’t think the approach Galloni took here is particularly smart, he could accomplish exactly the same result by simply having someone else organize the event, using his name as the draw. Then he’s one step removed, and I don’t think anyone would raise a question. Really too bad he didn’t do this from the start, since it’s hard to put the horse back in the barn.

This is just so wrong. Antonio has been very open and transparent about this deal. He deserves credit for that, whether one is concerned about the conflict of interest or not. To say he should have conjoured up an opaque shell game to hide what is going on is just completely beyond the pale.

[Eric_LeVine]

Frankly I blame Bob way more than Antonio. I just think that’s Bob’s silly pretense of a mission statement puts Antonio into a difficult spot. But as is always the case, Bob wants to reap the benefits of change without manning up and dealing with the implications. Not to mention that Bob’s rambling reply on eRP didn’t really help and was only bested by Squires’ ridiculous lashing out at Steinberger, again. The guy with the class is Antonio. I hate to see him raked over the coals for this. And I fear that Bob is so thin-skinned that he will pull the plug on what sounds like great events with the consumer in mind.

[Evan_Dawson]

@Eric LeVine

Frankly I blame Bob way more than Antonio. I just think that’s Bob’s silly pretense of a mission statement puts Antonio into a difficult spot. But as is always the case, Bob wants to reap the benefits of change without manning up and dealing with the implications. Not to mention that Bob’s rambling reply on eRP didn’t really help and was only bested by Squires’ ridiculous lashing out at Steinberger, again. The guy with the class is Antonio. I hate to see him raked over the coals for this. And I fear that Bob is so thin-skinned that he will pull the plug on what sounds like great events with the consumer in mind.

Eric,

I can hardly think of anyone whose opinion I respect and value more than yours. And everything I’ve heard about Antonio is very solid. So I hope you can help me out on this one.

Perhaps I’m being too tough, applying the strictures of journalism to wine criticism. I’m not saying that to be flip; I mean that literally. Maybe Keith Levenberg is right to say that there is a difference, and perhaps it leaves a little room for stuff like this.

I’m still struggling with the fact that Antonio is personally profiting, knowing that this profit is derived from the presence of wines he reviews with the winemakers themselves also present, and with similar future events planned. I think he’s perfectly genuine when he says this won’t affect him. We know that if this were true, he would be almost a super-human outlier. But maybe he is.

Do we simply decide that the benefit of these events is worth the potential consequences? I have a difficult time accepting “But these events are so awesome!” as a good excuse. And again, it’s possible I’m just not seeing something.

Is it time for me to view wine writing as something less than journalism? Regardless, I wish Antonio well.

[ybarselah]

Evan - I honestly think the idea of wine criticism as journalism borders on the insane. Any criticism by definition is based in large part on subjectivity. I feel strongly that there’s a great deal of objectivity involved in all critical writing, but only at a base level (e.g., “Is this wine correct?” etc.). But that’s not what I’m looking for as a paid subscriber to a wine critic - I’m paying for a POV on the wine – an opinion. If anything, most wine critics aren’t critical and opinionated enough! (My dear Gilman notwithstanding!)

And I must re-iterate what I wrote above re: the market will account for bad behavior. This isn’t theoretical, we have a fantastic recent case study in Big Dr.Jay Miller – his reviews are forever tainted and he is no longer taken seriously by anyone (or even less so than before!).

Is there a risk of shenanigans? Of course. But those risks can be largely mitigated by setting up these tastings/events in a manner that is transparent to everyone. It seems to me that Galloni is aware of this and has executed perfectly so far.

[Peter_Chiu]

@Nick Ryan

A bit of arrogance and naivety on Galloni’s part here. Either remain completely independent or don’t and don’t claim that using the TWA name to make money off events including TWA-rated producers cannot possibly be a conflict of interest. We’re not mind readers here, which is why the perception of conflict of interest is of importance.

Beautiful words are not trustworthy; trustworthy words are not beautiful.

Blending it together with a charity event ( for Japan ) and at the sametime making a personal profit under the name of WA is indeed a clever idea but …respect has to be earned.

The Empire, long united, will divid; long divided, will unit. So it has to be. Time is changing…so is WA.

The old soldiers never die, they just faded away.

[Alan_Rath]

@Lewis Dawson

@Alan Rath

Well, I don’t think the approach Galloni took here is particularly smart, he could accomplish exactly the same result by simply having someone else organize the event, using his name as the draw. Then he’s one step removed, and I don’t think anyone would raise a question. Really too bad he didn’t do this from the start, since it’s hard to put the horse back in the barn.

This is just so wrong. Antonio has been very open and transparent about this deal. He deserves credit for that, whether one is concerned about the conflict of interest or not. To say he should have conjoured up an opaque shell game to hide what is going on is just completely beyond the pale.

Maybe you misinterpret my position: I personally think what Antonio did here is just a little bit strange. I can fully understand the motivation for the event, Antonio wanting to be involved, etc. What I don’t understand is him using this as a profit center, that’s where I think things go a little wrong. Do various reviewers get paid to participate in events around the country? I don’t actually know the answer, but I hope not. Having a third party be the organizer, while attaching the Galloni name to the event, and making it non-profit, seems to me the best solution all the way around. If the profits are indeed very small, the $$ upside seems to be hardly worth the larger public relations downside.

[Berry_Crawford]

@ybarselah

And I must re-iterate what I wrote above re: the market will account for bad behavior. This isn’t theoretical, we have a fantastic recent case study in Big Dr.Jay Miller – his reviews are forever tainted and he is no longer taken seriously by anyone (or even less so than before!).

But misbehavior needs to be communicated so people can judge for themselves. In that sense it is important what Evan is doing.

Keep it up Evan. If you see anything else like this please bring it to our attention.

Regarding this thread in general, I think its clear Antonio is not following the spirit of the TWA guidelines.

[Andrew_Hall]

@Berry Crawford

@ybarselah

And I must re-iterate what I wrote above re: the market will account for bad behavior. This isn’t theoretical, we have a fantastic recent case study in Big Dr.Jay Miller – his reviews are forever tainted and he is no longer taken seriously by anyone (or even less so than before!).

But misbehavior needs to be communicated so people can judge for themselves.

Misbehaviour is defined by betraying the core of what people pay Antonio (et al) to do : evaluate wines. It will be unearthed when wines start getting Miller-esque scores which are simply not validated by those with equal experience and acquity as AG. Most baldly and objectively, it would be lying about production numbers, methods or other factual matters. Or not doing due diligence on same (a la Sierra Carche.) I

A.

[Berry_Crawford]

@Andrew Hall

@Berry Crawford

@ybarselah

And I must re-iterate what I wrote above re: the market will account for bad behavior. This isn’t theoretical, we have a fantastic recent case study in Big Dr.Jay Miller – his reviews are forever tainted and he is no longer taken seriously by anyone (or even less so than before!).

But misbehavior needs to be communicated so people can judge for themselves.

Misbehaviour is defined by betraying the core of what people pay Antonio (et al) to do : evaluate wines. It will be unearthed when wines start getting Miller-esque scores which are simply not validated by those with equal experience and acquity as AG. Most baldly and objectively, it would be lying about production numbers, methods or other factual matters. Or not doing due diligence on same (a la Sierra Carche.) I

A.

So you are saying we should have less information and thus wait until negative consquences to know if there is malfesance? To put it mildly, I disagree. The more information the better IMO. And even if there is no immediate negative consequence, in general I want to use products and services from those who have a clearly stated set of principles and stick to them.

A free flow of information is a strange thing to argue against.

[Larry_P]

My personal opinion on this is in line with what Alan and Evan are saying - at the core it looks like Antonio held a for-profit event, whose profits were based partially on donated wine from producers he reviews.

I can appreciate how an event like this can be a special experience for his subscribers, and therefore the desire to make it happen. I can’t help but ask the question, why not try to sidestep this entire ethical quagmire, if that’s possible? Don’t make it a profit center for your corporation. Or have the costs of the producer’s contributions covered by the attendees.

I have no opinion on Antonio’s ethics or integrity. I do applaud his transparency here, but has the opacity of his predecessors significantly lowered the bar of our expectations? It does allow (I think) a deeper scrutiny of his reviews of these producers, which IMO he now deserves.

[Andrew_Hall]

@Berry Crawford

@Andrew Hall

@Berry Crawford

But misbehavior needs to be communicated so people can judge for themselves.

Misbehaviour is defined by betraying the core of what people pay Antonio (et al) to do : evaluate wines. It will be unearthed when wines start getting Miller-esque scores which are simply not validated by those with equal experience and acquity as AG. Most baldly and objectively, it would be lying about production numbers, methods or other factual matters. Or not doing due diligence on same (a la Sierra Carche.) I

A.

So you are saying we should have less information and thus wait until negative consquences to know if there is malfesance? To put it mildly, I disagree. The more information the better IMO. And even if there is no immediate negative consequence, in general I want to use products and services from those who have a clearly stated set of principles and stick to them.

A free flow of information is a strange thing to argue against.

You are confusing the appearance of undue influence with the effects of influence. The former warrants skepticism, but is subjective. The latter warrants censure and is demonstrable. AG putting on these events creates a context by which one is reasonably skeptical about the effect on his wine criticism. Actual malfeasance would be when the criticism is affected and/or he massages the truth, overlooks lapses, etc.

A.

[Bruce_Leiser_owitz]

@ybarselah

Evan - I honestly think the idea of wine criticism as journalism borders on the insane.

I suppose one can argue whether writing wine reviews = “journalism.” For me, the issue isn’t whether a wine critic is a “journalist,” per se. It’s whether he/she views the position from a standpoint of independence from the industry.

If I may make an analogy, take the position of a movie critic writing for a newspaper. While the movie reviews undoubtedly contain a large measure of subjective opinion, the credibility of the critic depends in part on whether they’re truly independent, or whether they’re essentially a captive of the film biz.

So let’s say a film critic decided to put on an annual for-profit film festival, screening his/her “favorite” films of the last year. The film critic goes to filmmakers and studios to ask them to contribute films and people (filmmakers and cast) to talk about the films. Hasn’t the film critic now undermined his/her independence by asking studios & filmmakers to participate in a venture that makes money for the film critic? No matter what the critic says, haven’t they put themselves in a position where their film reviews can be seen as playing favorites for those folks who participate in the festival?

Is there anyone who thinks this kind of film festival arrangement would be tolerated at any of the major newspapers? In my view, it’s not even a close call…

Bruce

[Loren_Sonkin]

I am inclined to think that some are holding wine “journalism” to too high of a standard. As long as AG has not falsified his reviews in return for favors or some similar behavior, I am not worried.

Evan, in the whole Leslie Sbrooco matter, wasn’t your concern that she simply disclose her relationships, if any, with the wineries? I am not going to go and review the thread, but I seem to recall you were surprised that she did not just say yes, I am sponsored by XYZ, and move on. I think AG has been transparent and I am not sure how this is different with the exception of the WA stated policies. I applaud your scruples and integrity, but I think you are looking at it as a fellow journalist and I guess I agree with others who have stated, this is a different animal.

I guess I think that times have changed and that Parkers caveat/policy, true or not, need not be there as it keeps creating these situations. A critic should be succesful, or not, based on the quality of their reviews. JM2C.

BTW, on another BB I was told I should not comment on these threads as I now make a wine that AG might potentially review some day. I (obviously) do not agree, but those who do can take my comments with as many grains of salt as necessary.