Also, how many “one rules” can you have? I mean, having multiple rules that fall under this “one rule” may seem simpler on the surface, it really is quite confusing, because if you say you have “one rule” on your home page, people probably aren’t going to go out of their way to look for the other, hidden “one rules”.

“This is really the only thing I ask: By joining this list, just promise me and yourself that you’ll ask yourself before you send a response: Is this response really on target? Is this response really going to help the journalist, or is this just a BS way for me to get my client in front of the reporter? If you have to think for more than three seconds, chances are, you shouldn’t send the response.

In the end, we could probably all stand to do this a bit more, huh?

That’s it. No other rules. Sometimes the journalists will request anonymity, in which case, you’ll email me directly, and I’ll forward. Otherwise, I’ll include journalist contact info at the bottom of the list.”

I keep getting the one rule confused, apparently. :-p

K.S.,

HelpAReporterOut is a public mailing list. No vetting process takes place other than a short signup process and anyone can join. Therefore communication isn’t confidential. Peter (the list moderator) and the journo asked that I remove the journo’s name and I am happy to do so. I wasn’t out to smear her, quite the contrary. I don’t believe she did anything wrong.

The larger points covered in this conversation are important however, so I won’t be taking down the substance of the query.

Thanks for your comment!

I didn’t make the copyright law, but I sure do understand it.

The one rule of HARO (HelpAReporterOut) is that queries may NOT be reposted on blogs. Can I ask you to please remove this query as soon as possible? Thanks so much.

-Peter Shankman

I agree with you that as long as there is more transparency in wine blogging, consumers can decide for themselves what to believe as “the truth”. And more transparency is needed, not just in the general disclosure statements some bloggers provide, but in individual posts themselves.

For example, it is unfortunate that many bloggers review a wine, yet never disclose in that same post how they acquired the bottle. Even worse, far too many focus their wine reviews on positive experiences, without ever mentioning negative ones (see Breaking the Unspoken Code).

Again, many thanks for taking us all from the moral relativism of this issue to focusing on a standard of transparency that all wine bloggers should strive to meet in every post they publish.

Scott over at Roshambo referred me here. I didn’t expect to land in the midst of such an important topic.

I am all about new media–authentic voices, opinions. I’m a big believer in Joe Trippi’s : The Revolution Will Not be Televised. I just put blogger on my resume. I feel it’s a veritable profession.

I’ve been talking to a lot of people on how to develop my website. The thing that it comes down to is authenticity. Out of all this competition in the world for products, wine, talent, the only thing that sets us apart from the world is our individual, bi-directional perspectives.

But that is just my opinion.

I’ve just set up an RSS feed aggregator on my site. I’m streaming your perspective live.

Let me know what you think.
Regards,
Jennifer

Thanks for the comment!

We disagree fundamentally on where a writer derives his credibility. My position is that a writer derives credibility from being Knowledgeable and Authoritative, Honest and Consistent.

You can be biased and pass the above test. You can be wrong and pass the above test. You can be involved in quid pro quos and pass the above test (as long as you disclose).

In short, the rules the traditional wine media live by are in place not for the sake of the audience (which basically doesn’t trust anyone anyway, or much care), but for the sake and employability of the authors.

A published author’s audience isn’t their readers so much as it is their editor. IMO that’s why these ethical standards were put in place: its is a way for writers to vet themselves and prove to other writers and editors that they are Honest and Consistent.

But a blogger has only themselves for their editor. They already know if they are Honest and Consistent, they don’t need to prove it to themselves.

Thus the only thing that a blogger need do to prove to his audience that he is Honest and Consistent is to disclose.

Also, when I speak about bloggers getting taken seriously, what I’m talking about is raising the level of wine knowledge in the wine blogosphere.

One way I’ll personally be helping to raise this bar: Capozzi will be sponsoring a scholarship so promising bloggers can take WSET classes and increase their level of wine knowledge.

It is in this area that bloggers are lagging behind the pros generally, due to the very low barrier to entry in starting a blog. Folks need to get the Knowledgeable and Authoritative part handled if they want to be taken seriously.

The ethics part can be handled simply and easily with a disclosure statement. No need for the ethics police. Again, IMO.

Thanks for the comment and for your perspective Steve!

Thanks for the comment. Yours is certainly a valid interpretation, though an extremely charitable one. You also don’t address the statement where she says that “the subject discusses new projects related to his/her career as well as…” the wine related items that she’s interested in pitching to her editor.

My interpretation, though less charitable, wasn’t out of left field by any means. Tina (a magazine editor), Lenn (a published writer), and Dr.Horowitz (a Marketing Prof at Sonoma State) all shared my opinion that the query as stated is very suggestive of a quid pro quo. They all also agreed that such quid pro quos, especially with celebrities, are commonplace and nothing to get excited about.

That aside, I’m prepared to accept your interpretation. As I said in the post and multiple times after in the comments, I don’t think she’s done anything unethical (because I don’t think quid pro quos are unethical if you disclose them).

But here’s my issue with such a charitable reading of the query: why wasn’t such charity on hand when discussing the bloggers involved in the Rockaway kerfuffle?

The most charitable reading of that situation was that Jeff, a blogger at Good Grape, approached the participants with the idea of reviewing a wine together. The deadline and requirement to write were Jeff’s ideas, not Rodney Strong’s. That Jeff approached RS in the first place, not the other way around. And that the participants didn’t even talk to RS about the deal. They only talked to fellow blogger Jeff.

Given the above info, a much, much more charitable review of the situation could be written than what was on your and Steve’s blog.

Why such a hard line with bloggers. and such a soft hand with pro journos? Given that multiple people in this thread saw, like I did, pretty clear evidence of a quid pro quo, what happened to even the appearance of a quid pro quo being unacceptable?

Just like Film or Books, wine REVIEWS are simply educated opinions, and aren’t really hard journalism. The only ethical standard is that you don’t violate the implicit trust between you and your readers to give an honest opinion about the wine, and not let your review be biased. If a famous movie reviewer gave “two big thumbs up” to a movie because the producer gave him a cut of the profits, or cast his daughter in his next feature, that would violate that trust.