My only oath goes to the wine and not to the king. You have to be in solidarity with yourself. No prevarication or any possible entubation, unless you are one of the official suppliers of the crown of England in terms of champagne, like the chic family house Pol Roger, which Winston Churchill admitted before the invention of the GPS that it was “the most delectable address in the world”. Unwavering loyalty of a man for this inescapable address of Épernay or well-felt prescience for a bubble that never kneels before royalty, but which on the contrary flies straight vertically, for all and for eternity? The kings pass, the wine remains.
Like my colleagues from the To have to, I recently agreed to sign an annual declaration on ethics and conflicts of interest vis-à-vis my employer and therefore you, my friend reader. Because yes, my own “vine shoot” is solemnly affirmed to you. But what is it more precisely? A lively discussion held in Bordeaux around the table with the great British author Jancis Robinson several years ago on journalistic ethics in the field of wine made me think, although with hindsight I am not so sure may it not be Château Lynch-Bages 1982 that won out that day in terms of ideological decay! Finally. A few hints on the subject.
Do pure neutrality and objectivity exist for those who have made the profession of wine columnist their livelihood? The answer is no. Not only is taste impartiality difficult to circumscribe, but the context in which it can be verified can only insidiously corrupt the process. Even if it is grafted with the best intentions in the world. Wine is an industry like any other. Only more human, even more festive. Is the devil in the details here more than elsewhere when it comes to the appearance of a conflict of interest?
Several points were raised with M.me Robinson that day. For example, what to do in the case of invitations for press trips abroad? Like many wine lovers, I choose my destinations abroad according to the wine regions. My Trojan horse, in a way, to discover the local culture and gastronomy. But I have also often been called upon to travel in wine-growing territory at the invitation of interprofessional organizations or other government bodies. In this case, the host in question is always mentioned in the articles, which are in no way “content marketing” or “infomercial”, which are much more lucrative, but which I have a duty to avoid. If we agreed on this, it is also out of the question to be invited by only one establishment or one social entity.
And what to do when invited to a restaurant by a visiting winegrower? If my companion has been a restaurant critic for 20 years, I go there for my part for the job that is mine, which is wine. True that I can eat alone, without a radish, in my basement. But it is also depriving the wine of both its gastronomic dimension and its human dimension, without which its evaluation is a sterile laboratory analysis test. A bad wine will always remain a bad wine — and in this case, no press mention is possible — even if the table is up to it. However, we agreed that it remains difficult to limit, or even ignore on a human level, any form of friendship that could develop over the years with the winegrowers. For the record, and my former colleagues from The Press and Log can testify, it happened that I mentioned before the meal to an important winegrower of Châteauneuf-du-Pape that his production did not impress me. The man had appreciated my frankness. The suite was cordial, even if there was no mention of his wines in The duty. Curiously, the human that I love from the start most often delivers an inspired production, but his calling card remains and will always remain wine.
The receipt of samples remains another contentious issue. If this is supplemented by one-off purchases, the fact remains that depending on their number, several candidates worthy of interest emerge, hence their mention on this page. Would it be ethically preferable to deprive oneself of it? I return the question: given the impressive number of products released each week, this contribution allows the author of these lines to be aware not only of the available offer, but also sometimes of the little pearls that would have passed between the cracks. “Do you work for the SAQ? asked the lady at the very end of the meal with a smirk. I haven’t made a branch for the king yet, as far as I know!