And, we lift a toast to the fake award-winner

Another journalism blunder exposed, if Wine Spectator can be considered journalism.

http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/what-does-it-take-to-get-a-wine-spectator-award-of-excellence/

 

Their editor or publisher or whatever posted a message on their forum about it.

I'll have you know, good sir, that nearly one-third of first-time applicants *don't* win an award!

 

My favorite response...

 

I remember a recent article, maybe on Slate.com, where the author wrote about taking your basic $10 bottle of wine and telling people it was some fancy $50-a-bottle wine, and they liked it better than when people were told it was $10 wine. Something like that. The gist was that people liked the wine better when they were told it was expensive, even when it was cheap wine, and when given tastes of all kinds of different wines without knowing anything at all about them, the more expensive wines didn't come out ahead in the ratings.

 

Uh, oh, get ready. Hopefully the old battles with the Sons of Sam Horn have prepared us ...

 

"a nice, piquant after-dinner flavor - heavy, but with a touch of mellow smoothness"

 

This is not a wine for drinking, this is a wine for laying down and avoiding. [/montypythonjack]

 

Here's hoping they were referring to Romenesko...

 

Ain't this the whole theory behind the bluebloods' zeal for escargot, cavier and brie?

 

Lifebuoy. Blech.