JM in Unfiltered

[dstirk]

First article from JM I've read in a long while - and really summed up why he is not in many magazines anymore. I'm not sure why any reader of SMWS's Unfiltered magazine would want to know why an independent bottler had stopped sending samples to JM. I certainly do not understand why they published an article that broadly swipes at all other whisky writers for not being fiercely independent - especially given SMWS's long-time relationship with the excellent Charles MacLean?!

Being fiercely independent swings both ways and I think the editor of Unfiltered should have shown his fierce independence by refusing to print such self-serving twaddle and insisted on an article about whisky.

David

[Mr Tattie Heid]

You can't question JM, David. He was there at the Big Bang, you know.

[C57]

A guess - Unfiltered is still edited by Kai Ivalo, yes?

[dstirk]

Yes - I do not know Kai Ivalo.

[C57]

You don't want to

[iamtdogg]

Just read it on the SMWS website and it does come across as him being a really self-centred pretentious know it all

[mongo]

the article is self-serving, yes, but not without truth.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

The article is not without truth, yes, but is typically narcissistic.

[mongo]

possible then, for those of us who like to think we are not ourselves as obsessed with jm as he is with himself, to criticize his narcissism while acknowledging the good points he does make.

[Gordon_H]

>

[Gordon_H]

>

[whiskytime]

JM says what I already suspect....too many bloggers, writers, etc. etc. getting freebies leads to dishonest reviews. I'm not saying every whisky writer is dishonest but I think it happens A LOT these days. The allure of the free samples, the "celebrity" of being a known blogger, malt maniac, etc. - they are victims of their own success. And really, do you think distilleries are sending crap samples to these people?? They want good press so it's in their best interests to make sure it's decent. Of course, if they have no decent whisky, that's another problem. But then, the whiskey writers just don't publish the horrible tasting notes or they puff them up...you can usually find something nice to say about most whisky; it's all in the wording.

Don't know anything about JM's personality - could really care less if he's a jerk or a nice guy - it's about the credibility/quality of reviews that matter. And these are getting harder to find. The more whisky/whiskey I taste, the more skeptical (maybe cynical?) I have become. We have so many websites about whisky today - that's good but it's also bad - it's like the CIA/MI6 collecting gobs of data on everything - they have so much data, they can't process it all so it becomes "noise".

[Lawrence]

It really must annoy you people no end that JM is doing so well and that influence only continues to grow.

[MacDeffe]

It really must annoy you people no end that JM is doing so well and that influence only continues to grow.

I haven't posted in this thread

Steffen

[Mr Tattie Heid]

Yes, Lawrence, it does.

[Exciseman]

For some independent bottlers, I guess that reviews by JM are actually somewhat of an irrelevance.

Firstly, I'm thinking of the likes of SMWS, Bladnoch Forum, etc, whose single cask bottlings often sell out within 48 hours of release. Purchasers come back to these IBs mainly because of 'word of mouth' recommendations about past bottlings from fellow drinkers. By the time that JM's review (good or bad) appeared about an expression, it would be long sold through.

Secondly, I'm thinking of IBs who mainly bottle single casks for the export market. Again, any given would be long gone by the time that there was a "Bible" entry.

Pernoally, I'd like to see the number of entries in the "Bible" halved, with the remainder being much more relevant to whisky actually available in the shops and online.