We’ve all noticed how magazines are slowly fading into the shadows, as growth in magazine and newspaper subscriptions remain dormant, but has blogging taken over center stage? According to Jay Rayner of the Guardian, it may be curtains at least for critics.

It appears that consumers no longer feel the need to obtain their opinions from on high: the authority of the critic, derived from their paid position on a newspaper, is diminished. Opinion has been democratised.

Clearly, we have all seen a resounding shift both in ourselves and in our communities, with conversations occurring at lightning speed over social tools such as Twitter and Facebook. A blog post on the merits of Tempranillo, or a new release from Bodegas Muro, can be read and critiqued moments after it has been published, while a traditional print article may take weeks before it is edited, revised and published. Times have changed, and information is pouring from the industrious fingertips of wine aficionados worldwide eager to share their experiences. But Jay also misses a point here; the authority did not derive from their role on a newspaper, but from their purported expertise.

As Patrick Goldstein put it in the LA Times: ‘Critics are being downsized all over the place, whether it’s in classical music, dance, theatre or other areas of the arts. While economics are clearly at work here - seeing their business model crumble, many newspapers simply have decided they can’t afford a full range of critics any more - it seems clear we’re in an age with a very different approach to the role of criticism.’

Has criticism really changed, or is it the medium we use to get it that has changed? Steve Bennet, from the stand up comedy fanzine, Chortle, suggests that newspaper critics have obtained their position because they are both experts in the field and know how to write, while bloggers tend to be well versed in one or the other, but not both.

He has a point, many bloggers can easily fall in either of these camps, but so can print journalists. What makes wine bloggers different, or any blogger for that matter, is that the power has been shifted from a one-directional, static monologue to a dynamic and democratic conversation, where “good” bloggers (well versed in wine and writing) will continue to increase in readership.

Bloggers are succeeding not only because readers are getting the information (good and bad quality) immediately, but because they are forming a personal relationship with the author that supersedes perfection in either knowledge or grammar. Building the kind of relationship you need for a conversation does not rely solely on ‘expertise’, but also on the blogger’s honesty, trust, vulnerability and curiosity.

It is not the newspaper critic that is dying, but rather newspapers, a style of media that adheres to a one directional communication. Maybe “dying” is a poor term, as many of us wine bloggers adore print, but let’s just say that the masses want to be heard, want to be empowered and want to share their own personal brand of knowledge.

Alder Yarrow of Vinography recently addressed the issue of criticism and expertise, and stated that:

The appreciation of beauty is ultimately an emotional, subjective act, but the detailed and complete apprehension of beauty, especially in its complex forms such as music, art, and wine requires a body of knowledge and a set of objective observations. The two go hand in hand. Appreciation without knowledge may be pleasurable, but it is shallow. Apprehension without appreciation may be detailed, but it ignores our humanity and the truth of emotion.

What is comes down to is that blogging is only the medium, a form of conversation that is inclusive, rather than exclusive. Criticism of wine benefits from a greater knowledge of the product, but this is not the only criterion, and there are many ways that this can be approached, to the benefit of the reader. Instead of decrying the death of newspaper criticism, we ought to be emphasizing the fact that there is room for experts and journalists in wine blogging. In fact, beyond room, there is a need, a desire to have the conversation become even more rich and textured with voices who have profound expertise and knowledge.
As Philip French says in Jay Rayner’s article:

People should have the right to express their opinions. The right to free speech has been extended, but you don’t have to be elitist to say that not all opinion is of equal value. There is good criticism and there is bad criticism.

So, Philip, Jay and everyone else “Come on down” and join in the online conversation and show us what you think we should be discussing.

If you have a topic you’re just dying to discuss on the EWBC, please contact us. We would love your input, articles and suggestions!