Journalistic Integrity

One of the main reasons that Robert Parker has been so successful in the US is because people believe that as he has no vested interest or connection to the wine business he can be believed. The same cannot be said for some wine journalist in Australia and the UK.

Take for example (and it is just one) the case of James Halliday. For some time James was employed by Southcorp whilst he was also a journalist. Many people felt that situation provided a conflict of interest and as a result his reviews were not truly independent. (Just for the record, I am not one of those doubting Thomases and have always held Halliday in the highest regard, even if I often have cause to disagree with his reviews regularly.) But yes, its natural for people to be cynical about others motives and not to have faith or trust where there could be a perceived conflict of interest.

However, I believe there is an even bigger problem with the evaluation of wine news and journalism, especially on the Internet. The issue that’s as big as a possible conflict of interest is the issue of journalist professionalism or lack there of. There is no doubt there are many very professional journalists but then there are some that are not up to scratch either. And what’s even worse and more unprofessional is the explosion of spoused “News” items that grace many Internet sites.

Many Internet sites report “news” when in fact they are not reporting news at all. All they are doing is taking a press release and reprinting it, in many cases verbatim from the release as thought it was “news.” As any thinking person would realise, a ‘press release’ is normally a one sided perspective on an issue that is designed to make the originators or subject of the release show up in a favourable light. It’s got nothing to do with presenting a balanced opinion or presenting the facts.

Let me give you just one example. In a recent article a story was posted that basically stated that Prince Charles was right behind the ‘cork’ and that alternative closures are a bad thing. Prince Charles may feel that way and indeed have said what was reported, but the “facts” for this story were basically regurgitated information from a press release put out by the cork industry, not a balanced perspective. This sort of journalistic laziness where a press release is basically taken and some words change so it can be called a story is all to frequent.

Magazines are also not exempt form questionable behaviour. For example, every month Winestate Magazine has a section called “the wine & spirit insider” ‘free copy’ (what ever that means.) In the March/April edition the section then started off with a two-page advert for ‘Kelly’s Promise’ wine. The third page was set out in the same colours as the advert and had what was reputed to be an “article” by Joy Walterfang which in reality was nothing more than a free advert for Kelly’s Promise under the guise of an article. So in this case, where does advertising end and “independent” journalism begin? How many readers would realise this is not a story, its advertorial, an advert written to look like a scrap of journalism.

However in this case, its even more confusing as in all issues “reviews” of wines, spirits or beers are also published in this section; some times it even includes the “New Releases” for the edition. To add to the confusion, you also have the “Top 40 Best Buys” list, but is that an advert or is it independent journalism? Is the publication being paid by the wines selected for inclusion in this list? If I can’t work it out no wonder many other people are concerned about the possible commercial conflicts of wine writers like James Halliday. Which is where this all began, so I guess they may have a basis for their scepticism after all. To put it very cynically (and with tongue firmly planted in cheek) when reading “news” beware as one half of what you read is bull and the other half is s**t.

Cheers