More self-referential blogging about blogging

“Calvin: Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man? Hobbes: I’m not sure that man needs the help”

A bit of a cyclone in a coffee pot recently on Wine Anorak about some blog-sites hosting video adverts for a certain brand of coffee. Needless to say this prompted a deluge of agitated replies about the iniquity of wine scribes receiving lavish freebies such as trips, hospitality and samples – and not declaring them frankly. It seems that every man, woman, jack, queen, king of us is as venal as the other, grabbing emoluments with both hands. Well, not really, but you can always rely on blogs to generate more heat than light as the accusations are flung willy-nilly.

There are two sides to this debate. Wine writers simply wouldn’t be able to do their job unless they visited different countries and regions and gained an overview of the wines.  Unfortunately, newspapers and magazines won’t subsidise most of these trips, so writers are obliged to accept corporate hospitality. It is a means to an end. Does it compromise the integrity of the writer; aren’t they bound to report favourably on their experiences? On balance - probably. Judging from what I read, most writers tend to put a positive spin on their trips, but then how often in any case does one come across wine columns that rubbish wines? It is just not in the job description, unfortunately, to stir up controversy, which is why so much wine writing in the print media reads either like endorsements for supermarkets or a form of urbane advertorial. Editors want, and therefore commission, consumer friendly advice from their wine columnists, not ballsy opinion. Consequently, what is eventually written is often at variance with what the writer thinks, and what they recommend is not necessarily what they would choose to drink themselves. I would like to think that I could write what I think without inhibition, but I find myself tempering my comments through a gauze of euphemism. It would be liberating to pen a diatribe without fear or favour like one of those 18th century radical pamphleteers, but modern journalism is mostly about storms in teacups rather than causing political hurricanes.

And, of course, the world of wine is far too cosy. There is a huge pr slush fund sloshing around. That money has to go somewhere and it does – to the opinion formers.  We can’t avoid this – money will always be used to popularise wine. The journalist has to tread a fine line wherein the acceptance of hospitality doesn’t, by definition, betoken a panegyric in their next column, yet also feel able to give praise where praise is due or constructive criticism when it is necessary to do so. It is tricky and the boundaries between the responsibility to one’s readership and the notion that one is in the business of promoting wine can become blurred, but most wine writers just about manage the balancing act.

Blogging is a different matter being both a form of self-advertisement and a forum for opinions. We shouldn’t expect bloggers to be any more objective than diarists and we should treasure the opinionated narrator. If you can’t give free rein to a nice ripe prejudice in this particular medium you probably shouldn’t be blogging. Conversely, if you are a reader and don’t subscribe to the views of the blogger then you are free to find someone elsewhere on the ether-sphere that you do agree with. The blogosphere has seen the fragmentation of ideas and opinions, whilst the written and televisual media contrive to maintain the status quo. On a blog you may either discover nuggets of wisdom or self-indulgent waffling; without strong boundaries there is no focus, no need to articulate clearly, or write felicitously. At least written articles have to be seriously proofed and revised, but then they can also be cut or capped by the whimsical editor.

To return to the original caffeine contretemps I would never allow any advertising on any web-site that bore my name. The advert has a stand-alone quality which to me is alien to the aesthetic content of the rest of the site. And whilst I would happily recommend other web sites or companies or wines, it would be clear that it was my personal opinion that prompted such recommendations. I don’t think it is unethical to accept advertising, but the problem is that even if you do it for the best of reasons and with the most transparent of intentions someone will always have a pop at you for having sold out.