For a new credibility

I have never liked getting caught up in discussions regarding the credibility of wine criticism in Italy. What I have made a point of saying is that we at DoctorWine are not a machine turning out prizes nor a travel agent organizing trips abroad for producers. We have always sought to strike a different, more transparent path. We produced a guide for which no samples were asked for the vast majority of wines and nothing was asked in return for the prizes we awarded, which producers were under no obligation to accept. And so I was quite struck by the statements posted by Piero Mastroberardino on Facebook which were then highlighted on the blog of Luciano Pignataro, a well-known journalist and gastronomist from the Campania region.

Mastroberardino, who is an old friend and someone I have great respect for, rocked the boat and may have risked sinking with his statements. According to him, the decline in the credibility of wine criticism in Italy depends on the lack of transparency on the part of many involved with it, more agencies than individuals, and the excessive influence of sector lobbies. Most of all when it comes to the overlapping of promotional activities and jury prizes. In too many cases, prizes are awarded only to those producers who will adhere to other related events by the same promotors. And no one has said anything about the plunge in the stock price for the shares of Italy’s most important publisher of wine-related content, over 70% in one year and far more than the rest of the index.

The situation is a slippery one and whether or not the criticisms are true, they cast a dim light on the sector and reinforce rumors resulting in a fall in interest in guides and other wine-related publications. If you add to this the rising popularity of social media in obtaining information then the decline of the wine press becomes even more evident. Perhaps the time has finally come for a necessary change of course or risk the demise of a sector that even I contributed to creating and which had different goals and approaches and that played a very important role in enhancing knowledge regarding quality wine in Italy and more.We need to recover those principles of transparency and authoritativeness and make a clear distinction between criticism and judging and promotional activities and there needs to be a greater distance between those who judge and those who are being judged, with a code of conduct that is accepted and respected by all. And we need to do this not just to be able to say we are better but to respond to what our readers expect otherwise they will find other sources of information, as many are already doing.

In a way I feel like I am repeating what those politicians say when they become alarmed over that fact that people are not voting anymore and, if you think of it, the situations are somewhat similar. The loss in credibility is the evident cause followed by the tendency to be self-referential. I believe that criticism can still play an important role if it is done well and is authoritative. As an old journalist who is still a bit idealistic, I want to continue to be of service to my readers with expertise I have accumulated in almost 38 years of work. DoctorWine is just a small site that produces a small wine guide for which there are only three presentations. Nevertheless, I hope that it is also a breath of fresh air in a world where the ‘greenhouse effect’, as we could call it, is quite evident.