Sunshine journalism; it’s something that deeply depresses me. Surely there are a few thorns in that bed of roses?

Unrelenting niceness carries no weight and is counter-productive; honesty holds far more credibility for consumers and is of far more use to them. Well, those are my views.

Maybe it’s because South Africa’s wine industry is relatively small but there is far too much being nice, of tip-toeing, eyes averted, dripping insincerity around any view or opinion that might cause controversy or show up things as they are. Honesty would signal a measure of much needed maturity.

If this is a general grump, a more particular and current one concerns tasting results. Not, for once, the bestowing of medals or scores, but the opposite; those wines which, for some reason, fail to make even the lowest score.

In the early days of the now-defunct Wine magazine, wines that didn’t make the grade were published under the ‘also tasted’ heading but without any advice as to why not. This was the worst decision possible and less than helpful to either consumers or the producers themselves, although the latter could request reasons from Wine. The inference of that ‘also tasted’ was that the panel fudged assigning a fault to the wine in question, getting away with deeming it just not very nice; hardly the sort of professionalism one would expect from a group of experienced judges or the magazine.

I seem to remember now that the ‘also tasted’ category was eventually dropped but I was disappointed to see this approach being continued in the new Classic Wine magazine; an unnecessary bit of cloud cuckoo land thinking for something that calls itself ‘South Africa’s Definitive Wine publication’ and I wouldn’t be surprised if readers believe all the wines entered were indeed considered worthy of one or more stars.

On the other hand, it is so refreshing to see how Decanter handles this issue.

The Chilean Syrah category, reviewed in the latest, March 2012 issue, lists six faulty wines, under such heading, of the 98 tasted.  The first three are noted: Valdivieso, Single Vineyard, Limari Valley 2010 (corked). Chateau Los Boldos, Sensaciones Reserva, Rapel Valley 2008 (oxidised). Concha y Toro Terrunyo, Maipo Valley 2009 (reduced).’ There is no reference to second bottles, but I have no doubt that with the calibre of the magazine itself and the well-regarded, experienced judges, the wines are given every opportunity to perform.

Decanter averages the panel members’ scores to arrive at the final star rating; on Classic Wine, where there are five official judges and an associate, whose comments are encouraged, but scores not counted, the final rating is arrived at by consensus. Tasters are selected from, and I quote from the publication; ‘Wine Judging Academy graduates, Cape Wine Masters, top winemakers, sommeliers, retailers and leading wine writers and commentators. The winemaker/s will usually have specialist knowledge of the category; on the sauvignon blanc panel, of which I was a member, Thys Louw, winemaker at Diemersdal and creator of sauvignon.com fulfilled that role.

Without any further revelation, as I’m honour bound by Classic Wine not to reveal the full results subsequently sent to me, I can confirm one very well-reputed winery, known especially for its excellent sauvignon blancs, did have a cork problem with both bottles. Other faults among our scoreless six included pinking, oxidation and reduction.

As things stand, there is a lack of accountability by the panel for wines that fail; knowing they have to account for any wines that are deemed faulty would also focus judges’ minds.

It’s something that should apply to all publications - and why not to the numerous local competitions?

I have to admit that after canvassing views on this issue on Twitter and Facebook, the (literally) one or two responses were generally against the idea, only one person believes it sensible for the fault to be mentioned. ‘Public slaughter’ and ‘harm’ were phrases presumably looking at things from the producers’ point of view, though one respondent covered her options by saying ‘the consumer does have the right to know.’

Frankly, naming a wine with its fault isn’t a big deal; I don’t believe it would deter the consumer from buying any producer’s wines, nor, after an initial ripple of interest, would it cause much comment. Wine is a living liquid, winemakers are human; wine lovers are understanding of both.

Honesty, rather than niceness, could even encourage more people to drink and enjoy wine. That would surely lift my depression.