Page 1 of 1

Perception of bias in wine writers

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:48 am
by Loztralia
Ok so here's a little pop quiz for you all. I want to know what your perceptions of well-known wine writers' biases are.

Note at this stage - I am specifically not referring to "commercial" biases where you believe a writer has a vested interest in pushing something. I am talking more about, for instance, the infamous "Parker style" of full-bodied, fruity wines - a writer's personal taste or preference for a certain style coming through in their coverage.

My example would by James Halliday, who I have always thought has a slightly over-emphasised love of Hunter wines compared to his peers. Now I personally like Hunter wine and think it is probably suffering from being out of fashion as much as low quality, but Halliday does tend to find some five star wineries in the Hunter where I might well see no more than four. of course he has been accused of being a compulsive high marker across the board but hey, that's my perception.

So what biases/notable preferences do you see in the popular writers?

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:46 am
by orpheus
I would add a couple more "biases" for Halliday (A more neutral word might be preferences, which everyone has to have to hold an opinion).

1.) He loves riesling. Riesling, whoever has made it, wherever they have made it, gets comparatively high marks. I like it too, and most of it in Australia is pretty good, so maybe I share this one.

2.) He dislikes obvious oak, though this is reflected in his comments more than his marks (he regularly complains that a wine has "a touch too much oak", and usually I don't mind the oak - in fact, a wine with "a touch too much oak" in Halliday terms is exactly what I like, and usually these are wines that Halliday rates quite highly anyway).

3.) He loves Victorian reds. But I'm inclined to say, based on my experience "Why not?".

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:05 am
by Craig(NZ)
im popular with my mum so will answer for me hehe

my bias:

love off dry riesling
love refined and elegant bdx blends
hard on chardonnay (hate obvious oak) but love really good examples
hard on pinot noir (its gotta be really really good)
hard on pinot gris + viognier

elegance and definition over power and size

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:07 am
by JDSJDS
Every human has biases/preferences. They key to me is that critics should be aware of their own likes and dislikes, and be brave enough to admit them to their readers. The readers should also take some responsibility in trying to determine any biases of critics, but I think the critic should fess up ASAP.

Critic, know thyself!

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:37 am
by Loztralia
orpheus wrote:(A more neutral word might be preferences, which everyone has to have to hold an opinion).


Fair enough. As I said, I'm not looking for insinuations of impropriety, just ideas of preferences.

I wonder if Halliday's Hunter and Riesling thing might be two sides of the same coin? Sharp, acidic whites - most Aussie Riesling and young Hunter Semillon both fall under that umbrella.

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:40 am
by Roscoe
JDSJDS wrote:Every human has biases/preferences. They key to me is that critics should be aware of their own likes and dislikes, and be brave enough to admit them to their readers. The readers should also take some responsibility in trying to determine any biases of critics, but I think the critic should fess up ASAP.

Critic, know thyself!

I agree and I think it is problematic for the individual critic to "correct" for them. I think it's better if everyone knows what they are so that each of us can do our own "correction" taking into account our own individual biases/preferences.
Sorry for the thread drift.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:42 am
by crusty2
a mainstream columnist from Adelaide used to write volumes on high alcohol, and unnecessary irrigation, and how these wines would ruin the aussie wine world. this same winewriter now works for a smaller news service and still regularly promotes a winery, from the Barossa, which has nothing in its "dry red wine" portfolio at what used to be regarded as an aussie fortified alcohol level. I used to love the wines from this vineyard(s) but now they are so unblanced it makes my tastebuds cringe.
Bias, I would hope not.
Let your tastebuds decide.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:12 am
by Wayno
crusty2 wrote:a mainstream columnist from Adelaide used to write volumes on high alcohol, and unnecessary irrigation, and how these wines would ruin the aussie wine world. this same winewriter now works for a smaller news service and still regularly promotes a winery, from the Barossa, which has nothing in its "dry red wine" portfolio at what used to be regarded as an aussie fortified alcohol level. I used to love the wines from this vineyard(s) but now they are so unblanced it makes my tastebuds cringe.
Bias, I would hope not.
Let your tastebuds decide.


'Mainstream' is not quite the way I'd describe Philip White. :)

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:18 pm
by JamieH
Halliday - Hunter and riesling, hard marker for Pinot
Oliver - Victorian wines
Jancis Robinson - elegance and finesse

Haven't really noticed a preference for some of the other high profile writers such as Huon Hooke etc.

Jamie

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:51 am
by jeremy
Not sure this is the place to be doing this, but purely in the spirit of fun.

Halliday- Don't know that he's hard on Pinot?! Certainly not a lot of time for neb or pinot gris. Specialties are overall knowledge amassed. His TNs are being left behind by better TN writers IMHO.

Oliver- Ummmm, all over the place, don't use him.

GW- specialises in Hunter and WA (although does "lotsa" other very well), loves cabernet and merlot. Not big on Gris or Viognier or SV's

CM- big on Hunter and Beechworth, I think prefers Reds, is beginning to become a Cab and Cab et al fan and dabbles in Sav Blanc...in fact I think you have to be reading him pretty often at the moment to keep up (not that it ain't worth it). Generally plumps for interest mainly. And has a perverse desire to drink wines people badmouth :D

HH- should write a book or have a website. Love his work but can't pin him down in any real way.

Jancis Robinson- almost always right :lol: Well, I like her.

Oz Clarke and Hugh Johnson- haven't really convinced me they have much to offer at all :P

These are impressions and the above authors should feel free to set the record straight :wink:

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:10 pm
by smithy
8) Crusty /Wayno
The same journalist refused to taste my wines based on their reputation.
He got really annoyed at another local winery who blacked out the alc on the sample of red he tasted.
He really got into it and was disgusted when told it was 17%.
I think he used the term...ambush?

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:42 pm
by Attila
My opinion may not mean anything to you:

Broadbent: Soft spot for aged wines.

Hugh Johnson: Changed a lot over the years, soft spot for Champagne but now too relaxed to keep up with other writers.

Robert Parker: Thanks to him the terrible unripe and green years of Bordeaux all but gone. He is getting tired but still, great palate and one of the best writers out there.

Jeremy Oliver: He certainly needs to wake up to himself, his palate and writing simply uninspiring.

James Halliday: Over scorer but loves his country and I still love his writing and share his love for Australian wine.

Peter Bourne: Great 15 years ago but his writing today lacks focus for me. A Burgundy man in the old days but can't tell today...

Huon Hooke: I read him every Tuesday, always good fun and his soft spots change yearly.

Rick Einstein: Used to love his wine region travel journals but his wine score system simply doesn't work (for me). He is limiting himself to red wine which means he has no full experience in the world of wine.

Gary Walsh: Occassional great work but some really unusual quirky notes makes one think. Loves the Hunter. Since Winorama gone, I don't read his work that often.

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:59 am
by TORB
Attila,

Just to set the record straight, I was drinking bucket loads of c-though, including heaps of French stuff, when you were still in nappies. And that means "I have had full experience in the world of wine," even if it is not recent.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:15 am
by Eboracum
This is an interesting question.

I distinguish between two sorts of bias -

1) Innate or acquired prejudice which leads the writer or consumer to mark down wines from certain areas or of a certain type. The most common form of this prejudice is patriotic bias in favour of wines of the home country or region or against certain wines because of dislike for a country or culture, e.g. against France amongst Bush supporters following the Iraq invasion. It can also swing the other way; there is a segment of American wine-lovers who seem prejudiced against the domestic product but they would defend themselves by saying that this is really a type 2 bias, (see 2 below). Another manifestation of prejudice is the snobbish "ABC" (anything but Chardonnay and Cabernet) - to which Merlot should now be added.

2) Bias in favour of personal taste, e.g. Parker's taste for hedonistic, alcoholic wines and Robinson's for the elegant and harmonious. This personal taste is less often innate than a product of wine education, e.g. my taste was formed on the elegant Bordeaux and Burgundies of the 50s and 60s and this style still tends to be my reference point. Others whom I know first started with a love for fruity blockbusters and only graduated with experience to more understated and elegant wines; it can go the other way and I think that Parker, who started with a love of Bordeaux, is an example of that.

Bias of the first sort exists amongst most consumers living in wine growing countries and regions and is also present amongst some wine writers living there; it exists in its most extreme form in France where, for example, many Bordelais will rarely drink anything not coming from Bordeaux and, if they do, are likely to have a knee jerk reaction of finding fault. Good wine writers should be able to guard against this type of prejudice but it is natural that they will have a better knowledge of wines of their own region and this can be mistaken for prejudice. In this respect British wine writers enjoy an advantage of neutrality but this can be attenuated by cultural affinities in favour of English speaking producers.

On the other hand, most British wine writers of the older generation were, like me, brought up on European classics and their tastes remain orientated in that direction; Broadbent is the most obvious example of this but I don't think he shows the prejudiced sort of bias; if he likes an Aussie wine, he will say so. The younger British wine writers may not have followed this route; I think that Jamie Goode, for example, has said that he started out on mainly New World wines and came later to appreciate the European style.

Personally I think that wine-writers need to fight against prejudice but not against their own personal tastes provided that, like Parker, they make these clear to the reader. Like music and the arts, wine quality is unquantifiable and judgements are subjective.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:04 am
by orpheus
Eboracum,

This is a most intelligent and considered reply.

Your distinction between prejudice based upon preconceptions, and prejudice based upon personal taste preference is, of course, crucial, and seems to have been glossed over by the rest of us.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:38 pm
by cuttlefish
TORB wrote:Attila,

Just to set the record straight, I was drinking bucket loads of c-though, including heaps of French stuff, when you were still in nappies. And that means "I have had full experience in the world of wine," even if it is not recent.


What a pity...we'd benefit from your insights on the white stuff. You is a guru

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:47 am
by Roscoe
Excellent post from Eboracum.
I am however not convinced that the two types of bias you describe are mutually exclusive. I suspect that the two may be somewhat intertwined within our psyches. There are some aspects of taste that may be innate, but I think that much more is acquired. We all have experience of our personal preferences changing over time.
Prejudices are always acquired in my opinion.
While prejudices and tastes (or "palate" preferences) can and do operate at a conscious level, they may also act at an unconscious level. As such they cannot be consciously separated or controlled.
I think the only way the two can be properly separated is into innate (posssibly inherited) aspects of taste (which I think are of secondary importance), and all acquired aspects of taste. I don't think we know enough about the former for the distinction to be of any more than academic interest at present.
The distinction you make may indeed be useful for wine critics to reflect upon, but I believe they are largely powerless to overcome the unconscious effects that these biases may have.

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:55 am
by Craig(NZ)
Care Factor threshold of some people around here is disturbingly low. I dont think its healthy for anyone to care about the technicalities of 2x types of bias within wine writers, let alone write half a novel on the subject

Has anyone seen Billy Connelly's latest 'a wee beige jobby' session?? :shock:

This thread reminds me of the "going to a party" scene :lol:

ducking for cover now...be gentle

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:31 am
by Jay60A
Critique-ing the critics of the critics?

And I am questioning the critique-ing the critics of the critics?

We are well into wine-w*nkery here.

I dare everyone on this thread to post a TN instead.

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:31 am
by Roscoe
I prefer his "sheep shagging" sketch. :wink:
BTW, I do post tasting notes on an almost weekly basis, if you could describe my pathetic little offerings as such. Impressions or opinions are a better description.

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:22 pm
by Craig(NZ)
Critique-ing the critics of the critics?

And I am questioning the critique-ing the critics of the critics?

We are well into wine-w*nkery here.

I dare everyone on this thread to post a TN instead.


now let me think about that for a second

if your sisiters brothers mothers half sister married your cousins brothers mothers uncle, who is the flower girl?

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:16 pm
by Daryl Douglas
Jay60A wrote:Critique-ing the critics of the critics?

And I am questioning the critique-ing the critics of the critics?

We are well into wine-w*nkery here.

I dare everyone on this thread to post a TN instead.


It's natural that individual palates prefer some styles to others and that those preferences can sometimes show through in tasting notes, even though the taster is trying to remain objective. I was trying to give an objective, accurate assessment here:

http://forum.auswine.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=9646

Cheers

daz