Gourmet Magazine may be back?

Steve Heimoff has just shared on his blog that Gourmet Magazine may be coming back in some shape or form. Could this be true? Or are the folks over at Conde Nast merely using the name to brand products at Wal-Mart and Kmart?

I really loved the writing in Gourmet Magazine and I will miss the beautiful essays written by some of the best food writers in the world. I will admit, however, that I have rarely ventured into actually making something from Gourmet magazine. Although I am a pretty adventurous cook (I’ve made my own kimchi, cheese and bread), the recipes in Gourmet magazine had ingredient lists that ran longer than the articles and often included strange items that had to be ordered from the internet. Or they required that the cook slave by the hot stove for 12 hours straight.

Perhaps I am exaggerating, but even though I may not have cooked much from Gourmet, I still loved reading the recipes, salivating over the absolutely stunning photographs and dreaming of actually making the food there someday. It was a loss to foodies around the world when Gourmet closed its pages and I do hope that there is a revival, in some shape or form.

 

Response to Steve Heimoff’s Take on the Parker Drama

Steve Heimoff’s take on the Parker drama (read the WSJ article about how Parker’s independent wine writers received free trips & meals from wine importers, including a $25,000 trip to Australia) is that wine writers are poor and that it is inevitable that they will be treated to free wine, meals and trips throughout their career. Why is it that wine writers can accept free meals/trips while news reporters, who are probably paid less, hold themselves to higher standards? Is it because wine writing is less serious? If so, that’s pretty sad. Sounds to me like Heimoff is protecting himself because he’s taken free meals and trips from wineries/wine import companies whose wines he’s rated.

Heimoff argues that his reviews are always independent, but studies looking at whether doctors are influenced by the free lunches and goodies given to them by pharmaceutical companies show that indeed, physicians subconsciously prescribe more drugs when they are given the free gifts. (Read this NYT article for more).

So if doctors are influenced, why wouldn’t wine writers be? After all, doctors are making decisions that could affect someone’s health — prescribing an unnecessary drug could even kill the person. When it comes to reviewing wine, the consequences are less serious, so wouldn’t the temptation to give someone a few extra points be even greater?

I’m disappointed by Heimoff, and certainly disappointed by Robert Parker’s fellow writers. I think Parker should fire critic Jay Miller and find someone who isn’t going to accept $25,000 worth of free gifts. It’s embarrassing and will bring down the quality of his reputation and that of the Wine Advocate’s.

Respected critics should never accept gifts. There is no such thing as a free lunch (or a free $25,000 trip).

 

Response to Steve Heimoff's Take on the Parker Drama

Steve Heimoff’s take on the Parker drama (read the WSJ article about how Parker’s independent wine writers received free trips & meals from wine importers, including a $25,000 trip to Australia) is that wine writers are poor and that it is inevitable that they will be treated to free wine, meals and trips throughout their career. Why is it that wine writers can accept free meals/trips while news reporters, who are probably paid less, hold themselves to higher standards? Is it because wine writing is less serious? If so, that’s pretty sad. Sounds to me like Heimoff is protecting himself because he’s taken free meals and trips from wineries/wine import companies whose wines he’s rated.

Heimoff argues that his reviews are always independent, but studies looking at whether doctors are influenced by the free lunches and goodies given to them by pharmaceutical companies show that indeed, physicians subconsciously prescribe more drugs when they are given the free gifts. (Read this NYT article for more).

So if doctors are influenced, why wouldn’t wine writers be? After all, doctors are making decisions that could affect someone’s health — prescribing an unnecessary drug could even kill the person. When it comes to reviewing wine, the consequences are less serious, so wouldn’t the temptation to give someone a few extra points be even greater?

I’m disappointed by Heimoff, and certainly disappointed by Robert Parker’s fellow writers. I think Parker should fire critic Jay Miller and find someone who isn’t going to accept $25,000 worth of free gifts. It’s embarrassing and will bring down the quality of his reputation and that of the Wine Advocate’s.

Respected critics should never accept gifts. There is no such thing as a free lunch (or a free $25,000 trip).