The Wine Spectator visit 20 April 2007

Some comment and controversy about James Molesworth's visit to the Cape

The Wine Spectator, the important US wine magazine, recently sent senior writer James Molesworth to South Africa, an event which prompted (contrasting) comment from the Widow and Michael Fridjhon.

From Christian Eedes:
Though the extensive coverage that SA wine receives in the 30 April edition of Wine Specator can only be favourable on the whole, it is a little disconcerting to note how unreservedly James Molesworth endorses local Shiraz. His opening paragraph states “Syrah has now taken the lead as South Africa’s top varietal” and “So far, there hasn’t been a rush to produce extremely ripe, extracted versions, for which I applaud the Cape’s winemakers”. In contrast to Molesworth, I think most other commentators would agree that local Shiraz is still very much work in progress and in particular there are far too many ripe, concentrated, high-alcohol examples about.

From Sven Corder:
Finally someone [see Michael Fridjhon's article] has the sense to see the visit of Wine Spectator as a positive for the industry.  Its such a shame that an embittered widower is so short sighted and missed the opportunity.

A response to Sven Corder from Tim James:
The Widow's column is one for which the Grape team takes responsibility (the Widow refusing to do so herself), so these comments are made in my own capacity, as they say. The attitude behind Mr Corder's requires some response, as it seems to miss the function of the Widow's column, which is not necessarily to act in the interests (the short-term ones anyway) of 'the industry', or any particular section of it. The object is, basically, to point to problems and scandals within the industry. Is that 'negative' for the industry? Even if so, is it not a valid and even necessary journalistic function? There is more than enough rah-rah 'positive' comment (including, of course, on this website - the very fact that Mr Corder can make his contrast is proof of that). The Widow observed some problematic aspects of the Molesworth/Shanken relationship to sections of the local wine industry, and validly raised them.

Unfortunately there remains a windespread attitude that the function of wine journalism is to act only 'positively' - that is, to be part of the PR propaganda. That is not how Grape sees its function. We see our duty as being to inform consumers (but not on behalf of 'the industry'), to praise where we think fit and criticise where we think fit. (I wonder if Mr Corder thinks that, for example, political journalists should also be only 'positive'? Certainly there are, and always have been, those in official quarters who regard criticism as doing damage.)

In fact, what is 'the industry' that Mr Corder speaks so glibly about? Is it Distell? L'Ormarins? Some tiny hard-pressed ambitious producer? A winery worker struggling to live decently on R1000 per month? All of the above? Of course there might well be some overlappings of interest, but the interests of all the component parts of the industry are by no means identical. In the present case, just for example: how positive was Molesworth's visit for those sections of 'the industry' that he ignored (largely in line with the views of his advisors) on his visit? Well, if you see it all as a homogenous whole, then perhaps they will also benefit in time.

This unease I have about what constitutes 'the industry' is, incidentally, why I never speak (as Michael Fridjhon does, for example, in his article) of 'we' or 'us'  in this sense. Frankly, I do not think journalists (from the Widow upwards) should identify that closely with the industry on which they are supposed to be making independent comment. I do not see myself part of the wine industry, but as someone with independent views on it.

Finally: to criticise and point to perceived corruptions and abuses, Mr Corder, is not necessarily to be bitter. Nor is anger necessarily bitter. Nor even, in my opinion, is bitterness always misplaced: there's a great deal that needs fixing in the world, including 'our' industry, and if we only look to the 'positive' it's less likely to be fixed.