-
Website
http://wineblogger.info/blog -
Original page
http://wineblogger.info/2009/03/false-truths-in-print-media-the-credibility-of-wine-blogs-as-a-publishing-tool-among-the-circle-of-wine-writers/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Up until today I had aspirations of one day joining the CWW but, to be honest, it sounds like something of a dinosaur. We're constantly hearing about how people want to demystify wine and make it accessible to new audiences but Ms Arkell's comment makes the CWW sound like a bunch of old men sitting around in a club.
On another note, if you don't mind my saying so, your title contains the expression "False Truths" which is a meaningless contradiction. Truths are true by definition and cannot be false. Only a claim can be false. Unless you're being ironic, but then I'm not sure what you mean. Just an observation.
This is certainly a disturbng post, that indicates the prejudices of the Chairman toward blogging, as well as the fact she is ignorant of your membership in the group.
Though, I think you can make a strong argument that you write more than just a blog. Specifically, you have written a number of newsletters about Iberian wines, and that goes beyond "mere" blogging. So, by the words of the Chairman, you still would qualify as a member as you do write more than a blog.
First, from the chairman's comments, I do not see where she indicates that having an "editor" is a requirement.
Second, though the newsletter is connected with your blog, I do recall that there was at least some original content in some of the newsletters, little extras for your readers.
And while the "little extras" are just that, they are just for people who have subscribed to a newsletter through a blog, associated with a blog and nothing else.
Oh and apology retracted! :)
There is to much wasted energy in trying to work with the past. Hanging out in the past will only make you look out of touch with both today and tomorrow.
Good luck and continued success.
I am one of the members of CWW who has fully embraced social media and I’ve done this for two reasons. Firstly I have a website business that I dearly want to promote and secondly I’ve found it is a form of networking/communication that suits me personally, in that I can share some of my 30+ years of experience in wine in an easy way. I’m actually enjoying it.
I agree with most of your sentiments about the advantages of social media. One small correction: Open Wine Consortium (of which I am also a member) is an organisation that is only one year old and although it has some very serious/worthy professional wine people as members, it does not restrict its membership to those working in wine. There are many members who aspire to work in wine or become a writer/critic of wine. These are important points to consider in terms of how it conveys credibility onto blogs. But, as you have said it is the number of visitors to a blog that give a blog credibility, just as it’s the number of book buyers or circulation of magazines/newspapers that give credibility to print media. To me, these numbers are worryingly inconclusive, because who knows how many reading the blogs or magazines, or buying the books are actually fellow professionals. Credibility is a hard thing to measure and to obtain.
So, to come to your specific points about membership of CWW: Yes, like many British-based organisations, the CWW is slower to embrace modern technology than some. But, I’d like your readers to take note of the following. CWW is a voluntary organisation and therefore its ruling body – the committee – is not necessarily abreast of everything going on in the wider world of wine – it has no staff except a part-time administrator, so no full time PR person, no marketing manager and no internet advisor. It’s up to the committee to have its ear to the ground and in some ways up to ‘ordinary’ members of CWW to help the committee in its task. One mistake – and I believe that it was a mistake – of a committee member, in this case the Chairman, might cause a disproportionate amount of negative criticism.
You, Gabriella, were accepted into CWW on the basis of your experience and skills in communicating on wine. I feel sure and I certainly hope that in future, bloggers will be accepted to CWW if, and only if, they can demonstrate commitment, authority and experience in their writings and other communications on wine. Personally, I like to look at an old-fashioned (but still not deceased) medium as an equivalent – that of the local/regional newspaper columnist on wine. I am aware that there are CWW members whose published writing on wine appears just once a week or once a month in a local/regional newspaper. I am fairly sure that there have been applications from potential members that have been turned down because their column is the only form of wine communication they do and they probably don’t do it well enough. Most of the former do other communication activities in wine e.g. they run wine courses or monthly wine club tastings as well. The committee have to make a judgment on each application on its individual merits I believe.
Rather than dismiss the CWW as a dinosaur, let’s hope that this debate helps the organisation evolve. Bear in mind that blogs have been around for an incredibly short time – Alder Yarrow of Vinography, one of the early US-based wine bloggers, who speaks most years at the Napa Valley-sponsored Symposium for Professional Wine Writers said at the 2008 event that I attended, that just three years previously (in 2005) only a small fraction of the audience had even heard of blogs; by 2008 everyone had heard of blogs and about half the audience actually had one. I still speak to many people in the world of wine communication and beyond who have no idea what a blog is. It’s all very well for us to say: “Wake up, join us in the 21 century”, not everyone wants to or indeed has time to. Look what was said about the telephone when it was first invented “It will never catch on”.
Again, I applaud your post, Gabriella in bringing this debate into the open. I hope you enjoy your trip with members of CWW next week and meeting a cross-section of colleagues who all communicate about wine in different ways. And, let’s all try to work together for the greater good of communicating wine well.
Secondarily, I wholeheartedly agree with you Wink, "Rather than dismiss the CWW as a dinosaur, let’s hope that this debate helps the organisation evolve". This was goal from the beginning, and my only hope was for CWW to see value in various forms of publication available. As said, it is only a tool, and if we shun people from using this tool effectively, we are only limiting the various ways we can reach the consumer. Thanks Wink for a very thoughtful comment.
But really, it is not an issue. The medium is rather irrelevant. And I don't think that what was said will be a policy of the CWW.
But it (wine blogging) does raise one issue: Journalistic associations will have to "assess" potential members in a different way in the future, won't they? Just blogging doesn't necessarily qualify for being a member of a journalists' association. So there will have to be more vetting of some kind. Perhaps not a bad thing.
When television arrived, how long time did it take for TV reporters to be considered as journalists? They were just talking, not writing, so what's the value in that. Right?
On another note, it is curious how many journalistic associations seem to be rather behind their times in accepting and adopting new technologies and new ways of communicating. CWW is certainly not the only one. One would have thought that people making a living out of writing (or trying to) would jump on new opportunities. Or is it that they see it as a threat?
Or perhaps it is like many people's wine drinking: "I like to drink what I usually drink." But the really interesting thing (in wine too) is to try the next thing, isn't it?
Man technologically progresses upon the achievements of those that came before. But the man of today is evolutionarily identical to the man using stone tools and smoke signals. Or, it is the technology that has evolved, not humankind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Cheers, salut.
Richard
Anyway, it's all rather... disturbing! Perhaps the name should be changed to CWWEBITIATW (Circle of Wine Writers Excluding Bloggers If That Is All They Write). Their stance does relegate blogs to a different (& presumably lower) class of writing.
Which I find... odd. Wonder what they'd think of wine bloggers going on press junkets with print media journalists (like I'm doing next week - if only now just to piss them off!)?
I suggest that Julie Arkell's remarks should be put in context – hitherto the Circle has been an association of people who earn a living either in part or wholly from communicating about wine. The rise of the net and the decline of print opportunities – both magazines and books is changing this dynamic. Few bloggers earn a living from blogging, so one of the criteria used previously to judge whether someone qualifies as a member of the Circle is probably no longer fully applicable.
The Circle's committee is well aware of the change but as Wink Lorch points out in her post change takes time and Gabriella's post has, I think, moved this process along.
Clearly there are blog and blogs and the fact of having a blog is unlikely to be sufficient to give someone membership. I think it is likely that it will be down to the quality of the blog, its audience etc.
NB This post is my own view – I'm not a member of the Circle's committee.