Joe Jensen – thanks for the comment about color. Yes, exactly, what shade would receive a full 15 points for color? And does that vary for nebbiolo, pinot and cabernet? Young wine/old wine? etc.

The definition of journalism I discussed is not “mine”. It’s the definition offered by the World English Dictionary, Merriam Webster, Encarta, & more.

http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html

Whether you agree with their policy or not is another matter. But it does apply to the whole paper, including features, op-eds, and, yes, reviews.

Consumer Reports reviews, by definition, are not journalism either. Restaurant review, car reviews, etc., are, by definition, not journalism.

Yes, I’m saying the same thing over & over, but the real question is WHY none of the things I’ve mentioned are journalism. Journalism is, by definition (not MY definition, but the accepted definition) publishing NEWS in a publication, be it newspaper, magazine, TV, Internet, etc.

Reviews simply aren’t news. The fact that a new restaurant opened could be news. But someone’s opinion of said restaurant is not news & therefore not journalism. The introduction of a new fuel efficient car might be news, but the review itself is not newsworthy.

Dale C – The column in question was in Decanter magazine. Are you saying that they don’t practice journalism at that publication?

I do think the lack of comment from the editors there is surprising.

As to the subject of whether reviewing is journalism, I wholeheartedly believe that it is. Dale, are you suggesting that Consumer Reports does not practice journalism because it almost entirely does product reviews? Or that a restaurant reviewer could announce his or her visit, get the meal comped, and have the chef cater for free a subsequent rooftop party simply because the review is “subjective” and thus not bound to the strictures of journalistic ethics? Or if a car reviewer got to keep a new loaner for a period of months?

I agree that disclosure and transparency are key and encourage Suckling to produce a statement of ethics. In some segments he appears to pay his own way, paying for the wine at retail. But things are less clear with the winery visits. And then there’s the whole pay-to-pour (pourola?) at Divino Tuscany. Although his website came of age after the FTC guidelines on endorsements (and the FTC has not been vigilant about enforcement), he is still bound by them.

http://winediarist.com/under-a-tuscan-cloud/

Reviewing, by definition, is subjective. Journalism, by definition, attempts to be objective. Not the same thing at all.

Dale, “reviewing” IS journalism, if done as an honest advocate for the consumer. Otherwise it is shilling.

Is Suckling actually reviewing the wines honestly for consumers or just making up nice words to please his friends and adver… uh, sponsors, I have no idea so I cannot pronounce on his ethics.

I can say that he and his pompous attitudes do not appeal to my sensibilities at all, so I simply tune him out (although his daughter sings reasonably well.)

Truth is, I do look at his videos, but only in search of the cringe-factor.