I take it that unlike California where wineries can deal directly with retailers, all wine sold in NY stores or restaurants must be purchased from wholesalers.

I've just chuckled my way through a most delightful food fight on a NYC foodie blog site. Phrases that add to or obfuscate clarity are one thing, but language that comes alive because of passion, that' s something else. Surf on over and share in the glee of real nastiness. http://nyjournal.squarespace.com/journal/2009/6/2...

I want to know how AmericanWinery gets around the new California ABC advisory stipulating that middlemen "marketing agents"--entities that bring sellers and buyers together for the percentage of the deal--are verboten.

Wine notes are finished. See if you can do 140 characters on something other than a wine description--a tidbit on the winery, winemaker, even the wine... without rating it. TOM

The operating psychology was not the value of the wine but being included in the elite group of bloggers sent the wine. No matter how much you protest, studies show that such favoritism influences outcomes.

I wouldn't think so. Sure, it would be better, like the husband and wife team at the Wall Street Journal to buy all the wines, but who has the WSJ budget? Doesn't RP get all his wines that he critiques as samples? I think it is understood that wineries, in fanning out samples, have to live with negative responses, like wine competitions. There is no quid pro quo. That said, the infamous Rodney Strong Rockaway flap had a slightly different dynamic going on. Certain bloggers were singled out to review the wine which is fairly pricey. It seemed to me that the psychology operating, whether in the background or not, swayed the reviewers and led to a bias toward a (highly) positive review.

I still think that a panel/group tasting not only minimizes the conflict issue (no one person is getting that much of value), but is the superior way for coming up with valid asssessments.

If the Mosel were a depressing area (Santa Maria in SB County comes to mind) and you were squired about and wrote that it was most appealing then your comments would be suspect. But the world already knows that German Wine Country matches it's counterparts in Italy, France, etc. If you have nice things to say about specific restaurants, hotels, wines, etc. --if they were provided gratis and you wrote positive things about them, whether others have or not, your evaluation can't be fully trusted.

But if it is impossible, perhaps Parker Purity ought to rule. Meaning that communicators of whatever stripe--mostly freelancers--should be content just to read the tons of paper that marketing associations like the ~Wines of Germany~ publish for the trade and media. Let the flacks put out press releases, etc. that bloggers can report on. Junkets, wether for travel writers or wine writers, compromise disinterested integrity. Period.

Ken Payton has a relevant post on his blog, in which he discusses what the FTC is planning on doing vis a vis blogs. http://reignofterroir.com/

Methinks you doth protest too much, dude. Parker was rightly attacking false (premature) reporting and then rumor mongering which blogs regardless of the subject matter certainly contribute to. It is the nature of the beast, with some beasts practicing more caution and prudence. And, logically, I don't think he was dismissing blogs qua blogs, just their structural looseness; that anyone can send anything into cyberspace.

This problem bedevils all sorts of business activity--just look at the various tech oriented sites that are constantly trying to scoop each other and oftentimes getting it wrong. Bloggers do have to rely on second hand reports; they can't go flying off to meet with the actual source of the news, unless you have the resources of Slate or The Huffington Post.