The Suckling: Pomposity and Corruption?

[Richard Jennings]

Because I mention James Suckling's brief guest appearance in the FTLOP forum in this post on my blog about why I loathe the Suckling, including those hideous videologs, I thought it might be of interest to readers here: http://www.rjonwine.com/wine-critic/jam ... orruption/ [This one sentence was deleted by Moderator] I think he's giving wine critics a bad name.

(Mod's note: above sentence was deleted due to complaints from members.)

[Peter W. Meek]

<deleted by poster>

[Richard Jennings]

Pretty heavy. I don't care for him for other reasons, but the essay seemed slightly ad hominem to me.

Peter,
It was ad hominem. I was attacking Suckling, not his argument. What's his argument? That it's okay to write articles that feature and laud and quote particular producers without mentioning the fact that they're sponsoring your personal profit-making event? I'll quote the following pertinent part of the Wikipedia article on ad hominem arguments, "The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

[Peter W. Meek]

<deleted by poster>

[Tom D.]

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say. But it's all been said elsewhere, and I'm not sure you're adding anything of value to the discussion, or to your own reputation, by rehashing it.

I'm sorry to see Suckling melting down, his notes and commentary were once a useful resource for me.

[Derek T.]

<deleted by poster>

[Andy Velebil]

To address some facts....

1- It is correct that Mr. Suckling missed several days during his week in the guest corner thread.

2- The Guest Corner with Mr. Suckling was not closed due to his missing several days. It was closed at the end of the normal week in which the topic was scheduled to be open. The same occurs for any guest that appears in the Guest Corner threads. To set the record straight the topic was closed just the same as it was for all previous guests.

3- While Mr. Suckling is technically a poster or "member" here by way of being a registered member, he has not posted prior to his appearance in the Guest Corner thread. He's only posted after the thread was closed to address some posts that he "missed" and has not been back to post since.

The last point does not negate or reduce any in way that he is still a technical member of FTLOP and falls under the same rules as everyone else.

Roy and I are both out of town and are not easily able to discuss the issues raised. Please give us some time to contact each other and discuss how things will proceed with regards to this thread. Until we reach a decision I will temporarily lock this thread until a permanent decision is reached.

[Andy Velebil]

After some discussion we've decided to leave the topic open. The topic regarding Mr. Suckling is not new to other wine forums and does pose legitimate questions. However, I will be closely watching this topic and I ask people to be respectful and stick to the facts in their replies.

[Derek T.]

<deleted by poster>

[Daniel R.]

I think this is a very sad day for FTLOP.

I have always thought of this place as being different to most other wine forums in that personal attacks and venomous posts have been absent from the discussions here. If posts such as the one at the top of this thread are now permissible here you won't being seeing me around FTLOP much in the future.

Derek

Derek

I know very little about Mr. James Suckling (I know his book and I followed the recent Guest Corner, but have never read WS or followed his other activities). I have no interest in personal attacks as the one discussed in this thread. If I do not like a wine critic (for whatever reason) I simply do not read what said critic writes, pretty much as I do not go to a restaurant I do not like.

What I do know is that this forum is very different from other wine forums, and discussing the merits of a post in a member's blog does not seem to me to destroy what makes this forum special.

I also know that you are a very valuable member of this forum - I have learnt a lot from reading you and very much enjoy reading what you write - and would be very sad to see you become a less active participant here.

Daniel

[Peter W. Meek]

After some discussion we've decided to leave the topic open....

Good. Then I can delete my original comment. I felt bad about that almost the minute I said it. My personal feelings about another person have no place here.

Now If I could only delete the places where that post was quoted; but that's too much to hope for.

I will agree with the request to delete the entire thread. I should have trusted my feelings and never posted in it.

[Andy Velebil]

While I understand Derek's feelings, this topic regarding Mr. Suckling is one that is brewing on many other wine related chat forums and within the trade as a whole, so this isn't new by any means and is actually gaining steam. That aside, healthy and civilised debate is very important here at FTLOP.

There have been some serious allegations surounding Suckling and possible improprieties rasied since he's left Spectator. It would be irresponsible for FTLOP to restrain the speech of our members, so long as our members stick to the facts at hand and remain civil in their posts.

Look at it another way, what if Quinta "X" gave $500,000 to a reviewer as a gift and then that reviewer gave their wine 100 points. Lets just say that same wine had never scored above 80 points from the same reviewer. There would be people, including FTLOP members, crying foul and rightfully so. Obviously that is a dramatic what-if scenario, but it does drive the point home.

[Glenn E.]

Suckling's appearance here confirmed the impression of him that had already been building in my mind. Compare his thread with the ones of the previous Guest Corner hosts. His answers might as well have been tweeted, while the previous hosts seemed to put significantly more time and effort into their responses. I'm quite sure he is a busy man, but his appearance here was pre-arrange well in advance and all of the other Guest Corner hosts are busy people as well.

In regard to this thread, I have to agree with Peter and Tom D. It seems that there are many valid reasons to question James Suckling's professionalism and ethics, but Richard's article seems to me to go several steps beyond mere criticism. At times it seems to degenerate into grade school name calling which does nothing to further the article's argument and instead reflects poorly on the author. The meat of the article may be true, but the way in which it is presented is, to me, as unprofessional as the charges leveled against James Suckling.

Despite the relevance, though, I have to also agree with Derek that a line has been crossed. The nature of the criticism seems to be personal, not professional, and so I would prefer that this thread be removed.

[Richard Jennings]

To address some facts....

1- It is correct that Mr. Suckling missed several days during his week in the guest corner thread.

2- The Guest Corner with Mr. Suckling was not closed due to his missing several days. It was closed at the end of the normal week in which the topic was scheduled to be open. The same occurs for any guest that appears in the Guest Corner threads. To set the record straight the topic was closed just the same as it was for all previous guests.

I appreciate that clarification and have revised my blog piece accordingly. It now simply indicates that Mr. Suckling missed 3 of the 7 days he committed to. Apparently I misread Roy's statement on the closing of the thread--I thought he indicated there that he was closing it early because of missed days.

I feel that I backed up each of my statements regarding the Suckling with examples. Yes, I used some strong language over there. That happens in the blogosphere--a certain level of vituperation on subjects the blogger is passionate about is generally expected. I feel strongly about wine critics who mislead the public about whether their reviews are independent journalism or some kind of quid-pro-quo advertising, as I think it demeans the wine journalism community to have high profile reviewers engaging in that kind of behavior. And Mr. Suckling is a public figure in the wine world (and arguably in the general media, judging by the number of articles I've seen written about him to date), so critiques and condemnation that would not be appropriate in an online community like this regarding fellow posters are subject to different rules when that person is a public figure and their professional behavior is called into question. At any rate, I thought the fact that I mentioned Suckling's recent appearance as a guest here made my blog post relevant to members here. I do not apologize for the comments on my blog, or the level of indignation I feel about Suckling's questionable behavior.

[Tom D.]

Mr. Jennings, I appreciate your returning to explain your comments. Let me add, I agree with much of what you say about Suckling, as I did when you blogged in a similarly negative fashion about Parker some months ago (although I admit I was surprised by the severity of your comments in both cases).

I wonder if you could answer a few questions about yourself, since we all know Suckling and Parker but not so much about you and where you are coming from:

How do you view yourself in the wine world? Do you receive any compensation for your wine activites, or do you intend to build toward that in the future?

Given your reputation, at least around CellarTracker, for posting many wine reviews, I think many people consider you a wine critic yourself, essentially an up-and-coming colleague of people like Parker and Suckling and so many other wine critics. In most instances, it is considered inappropriate to attack one's colleagues, even when deserved -- there are certainly plenty of other bloggers out there to do that. So I think it is, in some way, a compliment to you and your rising status in the wine community when some readers are shocked to read your aggressive attacks on other wine reviewers.

But again, if you are just an amateur who likes to voice his opinions about wine and the wine world, many might say "more power to you." At the same time, I think we should all tread somewhat lightly here, as Roy Hersh is also a wine critic (and one whom I respect very much), and no one wants to tarnish his reputation by implicating his website as a forum for attacks against his colleagues.

[Richard Jennings]

Tom,
I appreciate your questions, as well as your thoughtful analysis.

I consider myself a student of wine, and I learn by tasting, researching what I'm tasting, and then writing about it. I am not currently paid for my efforts. My website, and trying to turn it into a useful resource for others, costs quite a bit, and I haven't yet figured out a tasteful and appropriate way to monetize it, and may never. I am working on a book project, as part of my continuing education, and because I think my project, when completed, will be of interest to others. Although I greatly enjoy my current career--as a human resources exec for a large nonprofit--fine wine has been my passion for about 10 years now. I would love to spend more of my time writing about it, but I am unwilling to sacrifice my independence as a critic and observer to do so. Instead I've structured my life to put as much of my free time into wine writing as possible.

I have a statement of ethics/policies on my blog here: http://www.rjonwine.com/policiescontact-us/ My summary of my wine aesthetic is here: http://www.rjonwine.com/bordeaux/my-wine-aesthetic/

To the extent that I've become a wine critic, and work harder every day to try to become a more reliable and useful critic, I don't buy into the idea that one doesn't criticize others in one's field. When I was a full-time practicing lawyer, I spoke out about problems in the law profession, even though it cost me some opportunities and contacts. I started GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in Los Angeles back in the late '80s. I became its chief spokesperson, speaking out against inaccurate and hurtful news stories about gay people and stereotypical and disproportionately negative stereotypes of gay men and lesbians on TV and in film. I endured a lot of attacks from people in the media (not to mention the religious right) for some years when we started that effort, but eventually we got our point across, and a great deal of improvement and change has occurred in the media and entertainment industry since. Although I love the fine wine community and am a huge fan of passionate and dedicated winemakers, and of many wine writers and educators, I do speak out when I think someone is misusing their position or leading people astray. It has, on occasion, cost me a few readers and even "friends," but for me, it's part of what I'm here for.

In representing the gay and lesbian community (or clients, when I was representing them as a lawyer), I was always very careful to present my arguments in a way that would be acceptable to and understood by the largest number of people. I saw my role as an educational one, and tried never to settle for cheap jibes and hyperbole. I haven't been as cautious or careful in speaking up about things, speaking only for myself, in the fine wine community, and maybe there's a price to pay for that. I was deeply offended by things Mr. Parker did a year or two back, and had also become deeply disillusioned with his long asserted role as an independent, consumer-oriented critic. I spoke up, using some pretty harsh words, but I think also making a number of valid points. And, yes, I was very angry at the time. I have spoken out against the increasing fad of high percentages of stem inclusion in delicate Pinot Noir, which I think is very misguided on the part of most who are doing that. I'm hardly the only one among commentators in the wine world who is aghast at the spectacle Mr. Suckling has been making of himself since leaving the Spectator, and I understand that I may have come on too strong for the sensibilities of some. I'll keep that in mind in the future, as I do think it's more important to try to be persuasive in argument than merely to vent or be entertaining. I spoke up awhile back on my blog about the lack of transparency in the way Wine & Spirits Magazine comes up with its annual Top 100 producers list, and I received a rather bizarre letter back from the publisher, which I then took apart on my blog. I did that knowing it would cost me opportunities to write for Wine & Spirits, but life is too short, and I'm too passionate about the world of fine wine to worry about making a few enemies or losing opportunities when I speak up.

I hope that gives you some idea where I'm coming from. I'm not afraid to speak up. I know how to write dispassionately and persuasively, but sometimes anger has gotten the best of me when it comes to this wine world that I'm passionate about. I value my independence and freedom to speak my mind about what I think is important more than anything. That may cost me a paying gig as a wine writer, but I'd rather support myself in other ways and preserve my independence to write as honestly and truthfully as I know how about something I've grown to care very much about--this small but fascinating little world of fine wine.

[Peter W. Meek]

Richard's Blog is Richard's Blog - his to do with as he wills. And certainly it was appropriate to announce it here, as he had commented on events at FTLOP.

I think my error (and a few others) was to allow that rancor to carry over onto FTLOP.

I will try to keep a better watch on myself in future.

[Tom D.]

To the extent that I've become a wine critic, and work harder every day to try to become a more reliable and useful critic, I don't buy into the idea that one doesn't criticize others in one's field.

Thank you for your informative reply, it was very helpful.

I actually agree you are free, and in some sense ethically obligated, to vent disagreements with other critics on issues of importance to the wine world. The point I tried to make is that if you are "competing" with those same critics for professional success, it becomes self-serving and improper to slam them with personal attacks. I don't ever consider it appropriate or respectable to succeed by tearing others down -- and besides, it is usually not necessary if one is capable of articulating one's position intelligently. For example, if Jancis Robinson wrote what you wrote about Parker or Suckling, and used the language you used, I would lose respect for her rather than admire her as a bold champion of her cause.

However, inasmuch as you are just a passionate wine guy, not compensated for your work in the wine field, and don't mind the fallout from those who find your blogs distasteful, then go ahead and let it rip. As I said, I agree with most of what you blogged. The industry issues raised in your blog do affect wine consumers, so I have no problem with a passionate but civil discussion of those issues here, absent the personal attacks which, I feel, put Roy in a tough position.

[Richard Jennings]

Thank you Pete and Tom.

Tom,
I very much agree with you that it is unbecoming and unprofessional for someone in the same field to slam a competitor with personal attacks--to try to succeed simply by tearing a competitor down. That's for political contests, not professional disagreements. I don't compete with either Parker or Suckling at this point, but I'll keep your point in mind. I do think it's important to speak out if you disagree with your competitor's methods, basic philosophy and the like. I've seen both Jancis and Hugh Johnson do that, quite clearly, in the case of Parker.

[Roy Hersh]

Thank you Derek and Andy for bringing this thread to my attention and I have a couple of minutes before heading to Estoril, Portugal for my last night in the country.

While I do not agree with some of the facets of the tone and tenor of Richard's Blog post, his opinion is his own and not sanctioned or the opinion of FTLOP.

However, as Andy mentioned, (and he and I discussed this by email) the items that Richard mentions, although at times quite sharply (as Richard will admit), are all over the blogosphere and in articles in Slate Magazine and others. This is not new news and Richard was not trying to gain competitive advantage as he certainly does not view himself on the level of Parker or Suckling or others who've been highly paid wine critics for 3 decades. Our official position is that although harsh in its criticism, none of the allegations in Richard's Blog post were false when it came to the ISSUES raised. His personal opinion about James was not what is normally ever acceptable here on FTLOP when discussing another member. Nonetheless, Suckling as a professional is able to refute any claims made against him and deserves the right to come here and do so.

In full disclosure, Richard has authored many articles for the FTLOP newsletter and even come along on one of our tours. That said, it is not why this thread was left open. I would hate for Derek to no longer post here. He is not only a very good friend of mine, he was one of the very first to sign up and post here on FTLOP and has been a supportive and vocal champion of Port and an astute Port enthusiast and has occasionally called me on my "stuff" when he's disagreed ... which I have appreciated. In fact, here is exactly why the thread will remain open.

In 2009, I was crticized myself on another forum, with false allegations about my scoring, business ethics called into question and personal attacks made as well... all while the participants in that thread and forum KNEW I was in Portugal and was unable to respond; (due to lack of internet connection whilst I was working on the 2007 cask samples). When I found out, I responded (v. late in the game) and in fairness, some people like Derek and Andy did come to my defense in my absentia. A vote was taken whether to close the thread before I had a chance to respond. The decision was to leave that thread open. I realized at the time, as a critic/journalist/web host/tour host I needed to have broad shoulders and accept critiques and respond to my critics and refute the false claims made that sullied my reputation. James Suckling as a member of this community, deserves the right to be able to respond to commentary in this thread and if he'd like on Richard's blog too.

That is EXACTLY why this thread remains open today. I hope James comes back to share anything he would like to add to the discussion.