|Handshake, Ethics, Truth, Innocence - of a past era|
Words can sound truthful and even well intentioned but the prose of any wine article can also be so general the only one knowing how it's to be interpreted is you, the consumer. For instance what do the words(1) "by far the largest, most useful and reliable source of independent information and critical opinion on wine in the country" mean? 'most useful'? Yes & No, in what respect. reliable? Yes & No... varies with source. independent? is each contributor vetted? Yes & No... The options change the meaning unless you the reader set the boundaries. Establish what's meaningful. Don't accept face value. Don't let someone with vested interests tell you what is meaningful.
(1)(2)From the article featured in WineAlign "John Szabo's Vintages Preview for January 5th 2013"
Another phrase(2) "you generally get what you pay for" is an outdated and naive statement in today's world, a world in which there is an increasingly disproportionate 'high income' to 'middle and low income' people. In contrast to the many venture capitalists willing to con their position in today's wine industry there are others willing to give of their experience and time not expecting payment except for the voluntary and free exchange of thoughts. To discredit the many wine bloggers in the interest of self promotion is disingenuous in my view. Every information source should be treated on its own merit and not discounted offhandedly. It would be a positive step if some leading Wine Critics/Journalists set the bar not only for themselves but for all their colleagues, ie. to start regulating their business. But a lifestyle once accustomed is easily rationalized by anyone.
That's my opinion, Ww