I stumbled upon an intriguing, if mildly outdated (posted last year) wine blogging dialogue on the ethics of review samples and bloggers in general. Based on this New Media Musings post which questions the practices of taking money or product in exchange for reviews, fellow wine bloggers at Lenndevours and Professor Bainbridge on Wine, took measures to ensure that full disclosure is given on review samples. Cheers to them, because I personally like to be aware that tastings, accessory posts, and related items were done not purely out of personal choice, but as a ‘targeted’ member of the wine media. Just out of curiosity really, not out of some ethical quandry.

Beyond that however, I don’t think there’s really much to get your snot in a knot over. These folks are wine writers, they review wine and cover the industry. As leading information providers they are obvious choices for public relations teams to build a relationship with and there’s nothing wrong with that. Tom Wark, commenting at Vivi’s, pointedly put it: “You can’t review what you can’t taste”. This particularly applies in the case of someone like me, who doesn’t have unlimited wine funds (oh, if only) and the only way I would be able to try some of these wines would be by sample provision. It benefits the writer as far as content generation goes, it benefits the reader by providing more information and broader coverage; the only risk is to the vineyard, who send their samples to critics with the full knowledge that their wine could be trashed in front of an audience of millions. Samples, both solicited and non-, can also make us aware of wines out there that are astounding, but don’t bear the label of a big fame producer, or that are completely unavailable in the local wine shops. They offer an expansion of sorts, the ability to taste variety, creativity and keep things fresh. As long as the reader is made aware of any connections between the writer and the vineyard, what is the big deal?

Let me tell you all a little story. What you may not know is that my day job is in the gaming industry, as in interactive digital entertainment. Video games. As a member of the media in this extraordinarily competitve $2+ billion dollar a year business, I get offered a lot of freebies. Companies know that in order to get exposure to a maximum number of people, you hit the print media, and especially, you ply the online media with as much product and information as you possibly can. That, I believe, is called PR. I have been with this particular company for about 10 months now and in that time I have had the following thrusted at me for review and favour: stickers, stationary of all kinds, free games (lots), exclusive media, dinners, rides in H2 stretch hummers, unlimited alcohol, dozens of t-shirts and bags, rendezvous at exclusive Hollywood clubs, a new graphics card for my computer (offered, not taken), and various bits and bobs that I can’t even remember. I have enough gaming schwag to fill the biggest Rubbermaid tote I own, plus some. It’s quite insane.

And yet you know, after the first glitzy bash, or the first glowing pen, it somehow loses its impact (this is your cue vintners, to be the first to send me a sample — I kid, sort of). They just get shoved in the corner, reviewed as little more than a job requirement, and I have absolutely no problem slamming the bad regardless of source or generosity. I think of it less as my relationship with Microsoft (for example) and more about the audience. They read in order to make purchasing decisions, to get a good idea of what something is about before they fork over $60+ that a game costs these days. Without them, I wouldn’t even exist, so who am I serving if I turn into a stumpy little patsy for an enormous conglomerate? Some gaming journalists have lost sight of this; lost sight of their audience and forgotten to respect them.

I find the wine debate rather amusing in that I work in an industry that’s widely regarded as one of the most corrupt industry medias going (in so far as paying for good reviews and the pressure to cuddle up to the big companies). So much so that there was a tremendous amount of backlash on gaming journalists all of last year. Calls for a ‘new gaming journalism‘ free of schmooze and focussing on the gaming experience were frequent…and here is the wine blogosphere concerned about whether an asterisk beside a wine review indicating a provided sample was appropriate. Perhaps amusing was an improper word to use. I am amazed in the best of ways. Wine blogging is comparatively still in its infancy and yet it didn’t take a reader revolt and constant inquiry for there to be a realization that you don’t have a blog without an audience, and you don’t have an audience without respect. It didn’t take some expose for writers to quickly tidy up their act. The atmosphere of self-monitoring and honesty is a little foreign to me, but very much appreciated.

It’s refreshing, it’s mature, and by god, I think I love you all.