It appears Robert Parker is putting his house in order.
I'm delighted that he is going to insist on journalistic integrity and honesty with his employees. Tanzer does it, other people do it, and it is important to fight for the principle that the press is not on the take.
I've cancelled all my hedonistic dinners with Dr. Jay Miller and I'm glad I can go back to disagreeing with wine evaluations in The Wine Advocate and not wondering who is on what junket.
I do think Parker could have handled this better and Mark Squires did everything he could to alienate everyone possible in their wine world. But the important thing is that Parker is now going to insist on real and reasonable ethical standards.
Now, I would like to see some of the bloggers who were so quick to attack Parker adopt the same standards. Some of these bloggers argue that junkets and payoffs are fine so long as the participants admit they are on the take. Their objection was that Miller and Squires were not publicizing that they were on sponsored trips and junkets.
This logic boggles the imagination. The bloggers attacked Parker's employees for doing what they do because they were not admitting to the public that they were every bit as unethical as the bloggers attacking them. These same bloggers defend their right to be on junkets because they admit they are happy recipients of the largesses of various trade associations.
Maybe I'm too old, but this is so crazy I get dizzy following their logic.
Anyhow, kudos to Parker!
I sometimes let a supplier leave behind an open bottle of sample wine. No trips and junkets for me though. My last one was in 1998 (Allied Domecq, Korbel and Gallo) and I was miserable.
I agree with your repeated comments on the merits of the famous critics as critics. At this point I carefully avoid any wine Miller or Squires rates highly. I feel sorry for them. I think they're bound to explode at some point.