tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3679537876578688335.post4153986483215043141..comments2023-08-15T16:28:15.658+01:00Comments on Dermot's wine blog: Who pays?DermotMWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17542223683683573535noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3679537876578688335.post-24335227243006255192011-12-15T11:40:29.756+00:002011-12-15T11:40:29.756+00:00In general, due to my work as an educator, the tri...In general, due to my work as an educator, the trips I take are done in order to further my knowledge and understanding. As far as I am aware I make it clear, either when posting or when teaching, if there is any likely interest, especially where a wine or product is a Supporter of the IMW.DermotMWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17542223683683573535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3679537876578688335.post-59120198494535564182011-12-15T09:56:51.620+00:002011-12-15T09:56:51.620+00:00I have no problems seeing trips paid for if the in...I have no problems seeing trips paid for if the intention is to further knowledge and education. If a wine from that trip is in some way reviewed and has the potential to influence a sale then the conflict should always be mentioned. If the purpose of the trip is to review wines, or indeed a region, then the conflict if it exists must always be mentioned also. If a reviewer is being paid regularly for other work within the wine trade, be they generic bodies or indeed commercial entities, then it is wholly unsatisfactory that the reader is not made ware of the potential conflict of interest. A simple Code of Ethics and interested editors would quickly sort this sort of nonsense out and where it exists it needs to be exposed. The result of R Parker's litigation may well set a new benchmark re whistle blowing. One hopes that it will not be at the expanse of the whistles.firstpresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11190691460610534516noreply@blogger.com