Truth in beer reporting and other novel concepts

**"While on the panel, I shared my wish that beer writers would tell the truth. I also said it would be great if those same folks would stop being so happy about getting free beer and being on the craft beer gravy train."** Anyone who is serious about really writing about beer will get the stars out of their eyes eventually. Not sure if you can relate, but I remember when the "beer truck" would start coming a few times a week. Back to the "babies" analogy, early in our publication, the brewers who sent me beer's feelings were under consideration. As time went by,my waist got bigger and my tongue got more fatigued, I found clever ways to tell the truth without kicking a brewer in the balls. **"..free beer has become the primary, if not sole reason many people get into blogging and writing about beer. For many, it’s the only “compensation” of any sort that they receive. It’s all about the beer and the close-up brewery experiences for them, and that creates a dangerous situation for readers looking for the straight scoop."** You are over estimating the scene greatly. There is a beer blog that starts up every day, there's a beer blog that hits up Deschutes or Stone for samples every day, and after about two months, they fade away into nothing. By the time a beer blog or beer publication gains traction, the luster of "free beer" has worn off. I guess my question is "Who's using these Johnny Come Lately Bloggers as a source of valuable information?" **"And we haven’t even scraped the surface of writers who make money by selling advertising space on their website or blogs. Obviously, this compromises a journalist’s ability to say something negative about a business. "** So if I'm reading this correctly, you don't want anyone writing about beer to earn any type of compensation? I hope you're boss is reading this ;) Seriously, you are pooing on those who are doing it for the beer and those who are trying to you know, make a living off it by selling advertisements. With our publication, if we run an advertisement campaign on a brewery for X amount of months, we will hold off printing our tasting notes for any of their products. Not only does this prevent us from looking like shills, and protects the breweries from looking like they are straight up trying to buy bloggers. **"So know this, reader. Even if it’s unpopular with others, you can trust what I report here and in the other publications that I provide craft beer content for. I see the truth as the most essential component of reporting on any subject and will afford it to you always. I am honored to have you in the audience and will never take your presence lightly."** That's commendable, I hope you consider disclaiming you work in Stone Brewing Co.'s communications department, especially when mentioning them in an article. You do have my curiosity on Beer-Con, more specifically who was there that you may have been talking down to. Hopefully they chime in on this.
— August 14, 2013 7:26 p.m.

Truth in beer reporting and other novel concepts

**"Some writers (many, in fact) make the argument that them not writing about a business is the same as passing negative judgment about that business. If they won’t cover a brewery, it's a clear way of communicating to readers that the operation is lousy. But that thinking is severely flawed. As stated before, there are more than 70 brewhouses in San Diego County. I’d argue that no single beer writer has been to all of them (they might tell you they have, but trust me, they haven’t...even I have one left on my list that I haven’t made it to yet), so if they haven’t been there, they can’t write about them. But if you go by their defensive stance that not writing about a business means said business sucks, that leaves the reader mistakenly thinking a brewery is subpar simply because the writer hasn’t been there yet."** We've learned in our 6 years of being in business that it's not fair to the brewer to cover them in their infancy. Going back to Iron Fist, and many of the brewers popping up in the Los Angeles territory, they are getting their feet wet, dialing in their recipes, and all while trying to scale up to meet local demand. Often times these new breweries won't hit the same mark twice for a good year or more. The way we pick new breweries to cover is when there is tremendously positive word of mouth. The best example I can come up with is Societe in San Diego. They were just another new SD brewery to me, until all of my friends, who I trust were gushing about their beer. I fast tracked my own coverage rule because after giving these rookies a try, I found they were making stunning beer worth talking about to our readers. **"The easiest way for someone to trust what a writer puts out there (whether they write about beer or any other consumer product) is for the writer to be authentic; true to their readers, the businesses they cover, and themselves for crying out loud."** It's my opinion that you mention you are an employee of Stone Brewing Co. near the dateline of all your beer articles. Just sayin.....
— August 14, 2013 7:25 p.m.

Truth in beer reporting and other novel concepts

Brandon, I appreciate this is how you feel and that you have a platform to speak your mind, I think most of what you are say rubs me the wrong was as it does other people covering this subsection of the adult beverage industry. As a disclaimer, I am the editor and Co-Founder of TheFullPint.com, one of the top 3 independent online beer publications in the US. **"During a question-and-answer session I was asked why it is that I would report the negative aspects of local brewing operations. Why I would “attack owners’ babies.” My reply to that was that they’re not their babies, they’re their businesses."** Well sometimes when you "attack owners babies" even in a over the top, entertaining way, the brewery might spend a week working on a "diss track" to put your small independent site in a negative light. **"While others on the panel stated that, if they came across something negative at a brewery or found its beers to be substandard, they simply wouldn’t write about them, or worse yet, would do their best to find one good beer in their stable to highlight while leaving out information about all the bad beer, I just can’t go that route."** Might you have examples of yourself talking about a bad beer that was sent to you? Trying to pass a bad beer sample as a good one is what beginner bloggers do sometimes, being tactful about a beer you don't care fore gives the beer writer legitimacy while protecting the "baby." I've received media samples of beer that was rank or infected, and I contacted the brewery who sent it to me with my feedback. More than half the time, they reply back saying that I must have gotten a bad bottle and respect that I don't want to post my notes on it, or send me a new bottle insisting I will have a different experience with the next bottle. At our publication, it's pretty clear what part of it is opinion and what part is passed off as straight news. **"If writers don’t disclose the bad with the good, there is no way for a reader to be able to discern anything from the prose they put out in their blog or publication."** People seeking and returning to an online beer publication will only be uneducated for so long. If a visitor comes to a beer blog or publication and reads an article how Iron Fist Brewing is craft beer's gift to San Diego, it will only take a few minutes of browsing Iron Fist's beer ratings elsewhere up against ratings of Alpine or AleSmith Brewing. So whether a beer writer shills something not good or opts out of covering something not good, the readers will be hip to it sooner than later.
— August 14, 2013 7:24 p.m.