How A Piece About Bordeaux Speaks To A Larger Issue In Journalism

A few days ago The New York Times ran this piece about Bordeaux, and how it's supposedly falling out of favor with young wine drinkers. A few of my friends forwarded me the piece, and wondered what I thought of it.

After an obligatory eye roll, I can tell you exactly what I think of it: I think it's nonsense. More importantly, it's yet another splashy headline aimed at getting clicks and forwards, the currency of attracting online advertisers. This is key, especially when discussing a news organization in the red as much as the Times.

Let's get back to the wine. The article submits that young wine drinkers are abandoning Bordeaux for other French wines, namely because Bordeaux is so expensive. Other wines, such as those from the Loire region and Beaujolais, are less expensive, but they also don't taste the same. Bordeaux is known for being full bodied and complex, and for a lot of people that's exactly what they want with dinner. Other times, though, you may want something lighter, which is when maybe something from the Bandol region might be nice.

To say that Bordeaux is falling out of favor is ridiculous. To hear it coming from a food writer is even more perplexing. Yes, Bordeaux is expensive. So are BMWs, and there are reasons for that. If you want a cheap wine, try a gallon of Yellow Tail, but if you want something that goes well with a steak dinner, a cheapo is not going to cut it. Brodeaux is also not as outrageously priced as the piece might lead you to believe. Chateau D'Arcins has a wonderful 2005 Bordeaux that you can pick up anywhere for less than $25. Chateau Puy-Blanquet, which I often send to clients, also has a 2005 Grand Cru that retails for about $30.

Wines are, ultimately, a flavor. Some you will like, others not so much. I don't like pistachio ice cream, but I wouldn't tell someone not to eat it or that it's not fashionable. The wines of France are a varied bunch, and worth exploring on every level. To compare them as one lump group is doing them a disfavor. Perhaps this writer might consider putting down his Trader Joe's Two Buck Chuck and try some new things.

I have a student in my class right now, a former quant, who often talks about his frustration with the media and how they report financial issues. He also laments sensational headlines that don't really explain the problems clearly, that often treat bankers and traders as, in his words, "mad scientists in a backroom." As someone who put together the formulas that moved our markets, he hopes to write about it with an expert's perspective.

Overall, maybe that's the problem. Maybe the issue these days is not only are news outlets competing for eyeballs on the web -- hence the crazy headlines -- but some journalists simply don't have the background to write intelligently about their beats. There's been a lot of turnover in the industry lately. Someone who was writing about entertainment a year ago might take a business writing gig to pay the bills, knowing nothing about the markets. Everyone needs to make a living. Maybe this Bordeaux piece is just symptomatic of a larger issue across the field.

Erin C. And Crushable In The New York Times!

Erin C., a regular on this blog for years and a certified partner in crime, has been highlighted by The New York Times as a rising star of gossip blogs thanks to her work at Crushable.com. YAY ERIN!

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece for her site. Note: This piece involves Me! In College! With A Guy! Naked! So if you're my dad you may not want to read it. It's rated R due to brief adult nudity.

Another Silly New York Times Real Estate Piece

The New York Times is probably the last place I would look for any kind of real estate advice. Why? Because journalists don't work in the industry, they just report about it. They aren't privy to the nuances of deals or day to day life in the industry. They find a few examples of what they're looking for and they write a piece off of it. They mix up data, most notably about the state of rental prices. This piece, about real estate being a taboo subject, is as ridiculous as it gets.

Real estate was never intended as a short-term investment, which is unfortunately how it has been perceived over the last five years or so. Even if you bought a place in Manhattan and you paid one of those high prices, relax. If you really want to see a return on a real estate investment, you should hang on for about 10 years or so. Some people would say five, but it depends largely on what you bought and where. Think about all the people who bought in Manhatttan the 1980s, had to live through the recession of the early 1990s and then sold in the late 1990s and made a profit. We're facing almost the same thing now.

In the wise words of Kenny Rogers: know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Right now: hold. It's all you can do. And stop complaining about the market. Believe it or not, people are still buying and selling places everyday. They're just not doing it for sport the way we were a year or two ago.

Don't Even Say The Words