Jay Miller leaves Wine Advocate

[Jack Bulkin]

Congratulations to our Dan who has followed the path of crumbs scattered on the road and has always fought for integrity in wine criticism .

[Daniel Posner]

Thank you, Jack

A few interesting developments here.

1) Pancho Campo no longer has a twitter account, which he was very active on.

2) Neal Martin takes over Spain, where you would think Mark Squires would have been the obvious choice, since he does Portugal already.

3) Jay is going back into retail wine sales, part time, at the store that he co owned.

[Ken_Birman]

So what's the story here, to the extent you guys can share without getting sued for slander?

[Daniel Posner]

The story is respun every hour.

But the update from WA land is that this was in the works since last January. Of course, then that makes it seem like Miller, Parker and Campo were just "cashing out" of Spain this past year?

[Eric Guido]

Hey, now I can probably start reading reviews again for all the regions Jay covered. Seriously, it got to the point where his name became a detractor on a shelf talker or website tasting-note.

[Ken_Birman]

Actually, back in December last year (before I decided not to renew), I exchanged emails with Squires suggesting exactly this. I said that look, clearly Bob trusts Mark, and Mark's ethical standard appears to be very high. So why wasn't Mark on the phone with Bob discussing the best way to preserve the overall WA reputation here? It wasn't as if Jay is somehow not replaceable.

Anyhow, Mark seemed amused at the idea that Bob would listen to him on such a thing, but didn't dismiss it out of hand either. I never saw the thing play out since I was out of there soon after. But I can easily see how Jay might, for example, have had a contract for another year. And if WA was going to have to pay him, making him work for the remaining year probably makes sense. For Jay, in contrast, with the contract ending "soon", maybe relaxing from what he probably found to be an unnatural set of rules for him would be sort of expected by the September timeframe... So it all fits together.

I wonder if Mark even had to weigh in on this. Wasn't obvious he planned to, although I think it was clear that he didn't approve of the more extreme situations we heard about. To the extent that you can parse what the guy is saying (he takes "gruff" to some kind of exteme rarely encountered on the Internet...)

Anyhow, I myself don't see this being enough to get me to "re-up". Bob still does the Rhone reviews and I just don't like his stylistic preference these days.

[Serge Birbrair]

So what's the story here, to the extent you guys can share without getting sued for slander?

Slander is SPOKEN, libel is written, and I thought that professors of the University to whom we bestow our children on their path to knowledge should know that!

Ken, if I write that you are a dork, what do you think are the chances of you winning the lawsuit?

[Ken_Birman]

Serge, I know perfectly well that I'm a dork! So in that case, why would I sue? And this would extend even to academic fights: if I say that "the XYZ theorem isn't the kind of theorem anyone should care about and frankly isn't even posed correctly", could the authors of that theorem sue me for expressing that opinion? Obviously not. So in my line of work open criticism is a common thing. The dorkness of various researchers maybe would be viewed as a low and inappropriate kind of thing to express outloud, but at most people would hiss and boo quietly.

Case in point: being totally distracted, I go and definitely insult Martha Stewart on the Tanzer web site (as you perhaps noticed, the other day). Then offer a lame excuse. Could she sue me? I doubt it. As I said on the site, I screwed up and was wrong. I think this is all she could demand. On the Tanzer site I can't even edit the thread once posted; I've done "all I can" to redress the terrible, painful mistake I made by mischaracterizing her comments and putting a quote totally out of context. I was wrong, just terribly wrong. But what more can I do than what I've done?

So: I'm a dork in Martha's eyes by now. But that's about the size of it and also as far as that would go.

But: could she sue Tanzer and demand that he take down that thread, or somehow pay her money for it having even appeared? More complex. I bet she could, actually.

Leading back to my comment on this thread: Daniel runs an actual business and owns the web site, so I suspect he is probably at more risk than me and you, and in different ways too. If one ITB person spreads statements that would harm some other ITB person (and clearly, Big Jay was very much ITB, as we're gathering, and remains ITB apparently too!), you run into that issue that a judge might see some merit in the thing.

[Daniel Posner]

Ken

I do not own this site.

[Ken_Birman]

Then probably you are at less risk if you share things you think are true, even about folks ITB.

In fact the Internet is a strange place. Not many of the laws we take for granted from other settings really apply, in a direct way.

[Daniel Posner]

It appears that Robert Parker, Pancho Campo and Jay Miller are in some hot water at the moment.

http://winediarist.com/miller-time-one-more-time/

[Ken_Birman]

If the guy did the reviews after those visits, why should his subsequent departure matter at all? WA scores live on long after the reviewer has gone, as the saying goes....

[Serge Birbrair]

Ken,
I'll tone down the rhetoric and stick to what I know through being in the lawsuits myself and fucking numerous lawyers.
( got my legal education through pillow talk)

1) Martha Stewart can sue anybody in this country and anybody in this country can sue Martha Stewart, this is the law of the land. Winning the lawsuit is another story, but suing? yes, everybody in this country has this right

2) Tanzer will win the law suit if Martha Stewart decides to pursue due the the Millennium Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital..._Copyright_Act
"DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users."

The provider (in the case you mentioned Mr Tanzer) is NOT liable for your righting!

Another venue which Supreme court ruled on in Falwell vs Larry Flynt,
PARODY is also constitutionally protected free speech.

Allegedly Parker hired lawyers:
https://www.cellartracker.com/forum/tm.asp?m=178136
and I'll test the Supreme Court decision by posting the following:
Jay Miller and Parker are making it out in the outhouse with Burgundy bottles.

If and when I am served by Parker's lawyers, I'll post it on the board and keep everybody informed how the things are going:

[Ken_Birman]

Sounds like consorting with lawyers has all sorts of fringe benefits! Serge, I appreciate the summary; I didn't know about this protection for providers.

[Daniel Posner]

Interesting post here, Tom Mann, showing how Jay Miller had to have copied Robert Parker's TNs. Miller's response, "I should have been more careful."

Jeff Leve chimed in, as well, defending Miller...shocking, I know, saying that critics run out of adjectives.

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/...0&postcount=34

[B]2001 Pesus (review Jun 2005)
This was an impressive barrel sample when tasted last year, and the bottled wine has turned out to be even better. The flagship offering here is the 2001 Pesus, a limited, 100-case blend of 80% Tempranillo (80-100-year old vines) and 20% Cabernet Sauvignon. This fabulous offering is one of Spain’s greatest wines. Its opaque purple color is accompanied by sumptuous aromas of black cherries, cassis, dried herbs, licorice, and smoke. With enormous concentration, a seamless personality, huge body, sensational concentration, and wonderful overall balance and purity, it needs 1-2 more years of bottle age, and should evolve for 12-15 years or more." (98 POINTS, RP)


2003 Pesus (review Feb 2007)
"The 2003 Pesus comes from a small parcel of 82-year-old Tempranillo with small amounts of Cabernet Sauvignon and Petit Verdot as part of the field blend. Yields were a microscopic 7-9 hectoliters per hectare. After fermentation in a special stainless steel tank, the wine was transferred into new French oak. It was racked further into new oak three times and aged for a total of 24 months in the oak. This 100-case cuvee is surely one of Spain’s greatest wines. Nearly black in color, with enticing aromas of black cherries, cassis, spice, and licorice, on the palate there is amazing concentration, full body, and layer upon layer of fruit. The tannins are nearly covered as this wine is virtually seamless. Give it 4-6 years of additional cellaring and drink it for the following 20 years." (98 POINTS, JM)

2006 Pesus (review Apr 2010)
"The flagship 2006 Pesus comes from a small parcel of 82-year-old Tempranillo vines blended with a bit of Cabernet Sauvignon and Petit Verdot. After fermentation in a special stainless steel tank, the wine was transferred into new French oak. It was racked further into new oak three times and aged for a total of 24 months in barrel. Purple/black in color, it emits an aromatic array of sandalwood, pencil lead, Asian spices, incense, truffle, tar, licorice, black cherry, and blackberry. Dense, rich, loaded, and long, it will continue unwinding for a decade and offer a drinking window extending from 2017 to 2036, probably longer." (98 POINTS, JM)

[Serge Birbrair]

Sounds like consorting with lawyers has all sorts of fringe benefits! Serge, I appreciate the summary; I didn't know about this protection for providers.

Ken, it does! My grandfather was a lawyer and my parents were medical doctors and I am not intimidated by either or.
When I was growing up, they couldn't make me go to bed on time and with age I got even more brazen!

A propos, my parents introduced me to wine when I was 5 years old. I learned to read at the same time and I wish I was reading tasting notes rather than children books, my cellar would have been much more impressive now!

[Mike Reff]

I am know pleased that any wine that is rated from Spain is Neal's although I am not at all convinced that Neal wanted the job. Regardless at least Neal writes well and has a decent palate, IMO

[Daniel Posner]

Mike

I do not think it mattered much.

Jay was rendered irrelevant and Neal pretty much is