McInerny FAIL in WSJ Beaujolais article?

[Robin Garr]

The chattering classes among the wine writers and bloggers are savaging Jay McInerny over what looks a bit like a careless, lazy WSJ article. "Fleury"? Really? Check the pages of comments at the end of his story to get the gist of it, and chime in to attack or defend the writer, as suits your fancy.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wine/2010/07/23/be ... ss_WSJBlog

He's a busy guy. Maybe he wrote it in a fleury of activity. And maybe the editing at the place isn't what it used to be....

Other than misspelling Fleurie, the article wasn't THAT bad. I haven't been following him since he signed up at WSJ, but the prose sounds like his previous writings.

[Robin Garr]

Other than misspelling Fleurie, the article wasn't THAT bad. I haven't been following him since he signed up at WSJ, but the prose sounds like his previous writings.

It wasn't really that good, Carl. It was a puff piece for Duboeuf and repeated all the standard factoids about Beaujolais that could have (and actually have) appeared in hundreds of articles over the past two decades.

Well ... I'll leave it to the commenters on WSJ, and to the blogosphere, but personally I thought the article was an embarrassment.

[Robin Garr]

fleury of activity....

Otherwise, what I said to Carl.

Not the first time that there has been an uproar over a WSJ Blog entry. A similar incident took place a month or two ago over something Ms. Teague did. Sorry but I don't remember the topic or why it was such an issue. What has become clear is that there is a different standard between what is printed in the paper as the weekly wine article and what is confined to the blog page.

Other than misspelling Fleurie, the article wasn't THAT bad. I haven't been following him since he signed up at WSJ, but the prose sounds like his previous writings.

Carl and others, maybe this might be of interest? Scroll down a tad, another Beaujolly view!

http://leonstolarski.blogspot.com/

Duboeuf is a "negotiant"?

Duboeuf is a "negotiant"?

Are you trying to refudiate this article?

It is all the rage to belittle Georges Duboeuf, but let me just say that if everyone in the wine business was as dedicated and hardworking as this man is, there would be very little to criticize in the wine world. Sure there are more esoteric Beaujolais out there, but in most markets his wines represent Beaujolais, and do a very nice job! The man spent an hour tasting wine with just me, on a cold and rainy February Sunday a few years ago, and that proved to me what his tireless efforts have done for Beaujolais and wine in general. If there are better Beaujolais out there, I dare say it is because of his hard work establishing the AOC. We should raise a glass (of Beaujolais) to him! I just finished a lobster salad with an '07 Duboeuf Pouilly Fuisse and last week enjoyed an '08 Morgon (Descombes) with baked chicken, not "life changing" but a solid value, and his '08 Macon-Villages is one of the "Best Buys" out there @ $9. I wish I could afford village Burgundy every night, but when I can't, I know where to turn.

Richard,

I think the point of this thread is the article, not Duboeuf, and the article was an embarrassment. It looked like the result of a PR junket, not journalism. The first sentence made me cringe: 'Beaujolais is a wine that many of us feel we have outgrown.' There are so many ways he could have introduced that piece, and this is the best he can do?

Next up, Guigal and the wines of the Rone valley.

[Robin Garr]

Next up, Guigal and the wines of the Rone valley.

"Geegul."

It is all the rage to belittle Georges Deboeuf

You meant "Duboeuf", surely? (OK, I won't call you "Shirley", if you insist).

But when replying to a thread based on a misspelling in a press report, you have to be careful about such things.

And isn't the appellation "Macon-Villages", not "Macon-Village"?

My complaint about the Duboeuf Beaujolais wines has always been the banana factor.

-Paul W.

'Beaujolais is a wine that many of us feel we have outgrown.'

I know what you mean, but it seems that making sport of Duboeuf is all the rage on this page. Admittedly there are often better, more esoteric wines out there other than Duboeuf, but he makes a concerted effort, and for a lot of markets, he is Beaujolais. As for your quote, in my classes I am constantly confronted with people who either do not or will not drink Beaujolais due to the "Nouveau" prejudgement (this has been blamed on Duboeuf, but in the balance he should come out ahead) and the fact that they "overindulged" in their formative years. What a shame to eliminate a solid wine by over-consumption. Most have never tasted a Cru Beaujolais, whether from Duboeuf or a more obscure producer, which can be life-changing (at least from a budgetary standpoint). Good wine is good wine regardless of whether it is from a small producer or a negociant and whether it cost $12 or $25.

[Robin Garr]

My complaint about the Duboeuf Beaujolais wines has always been the banana factor.

Bear in mind, though that Duboeuf discontinued use of the 71B quite a number of years ago ... back around the turn of the century, perhaps. In fairness, although his generics do tend to be "generous" with their fruit, I haven't found "banana" in any of his wines but possibly the Nouveau for years. And his Crus, particularly those labeled after their growers, can be very good indeed.

Like the old joke about "Just **** one ****," it can be pretty tough for a producer to shed a reputation once it's earned. But "banana" for Duboeuf hasn't been a fair cop for quite a while.