Yesterday a friend of mine sent me this article from the Wall Street Journal, regarding some recent impropriety at The Wine Advocate, Robert Parker's consumer advocacy magazine for wine. Though some of you might not know the name, rest assured that Mr. Parker has at least indirectly influenced your wine-buying decisions, and not through stories of hard-nosed P.I.s and Old West adventure.

Parker is the self proclaimed "most powerful man in the wine world," and by many accounts, is the most influential critic of any kind in his chosen field. By cultivating a reputation for impartiality and incomparable tasting abilities, and introducing the American-friendly 100-point scale to the field of wine judgment, Parker and his peoples wield unheard of influence. With a score of 98, a once unknown is raised to cult status, where the poor schlub on the next shelf over with the 89 is doomed to clearance. Parker's palate even influences wine at the point of origin, with myriad winemakers admitting to tweaking their style to fit the emperor's taste.

When he founded the WA in 1978, Parker took a Naderesque view of consumer advocacy, seeking to judge his chosen subject objectively, and refusing to accept advertisers' dollars. Leaving out of it the absurdity of judging taste objectively, and on such a specific quantitative scale (I give 2009 trucker hats a 91!), it appears that Parker's crew hasn't exactly been sticking by the rag's altruistic precepts. It's come to light that several of the critics have taken thousands of dollars worth of meals and trips from suppliers and importers, with one subjecting himself to a guided tour by Wine Australia, an advocacy group representing some 40 or so of the eponymous continent's wineries. Parker has written off the offenses, saying, "I don't hold the independent contractors ... to the same stringent standards as I adhere to (sic). Yet I do have serious guidelines regarding conflicts of interest, and they are well aware of them."

Really, Mr. Parker? Well, to be fair, Parker clearly outlines his standards, and those to which he holds his writers, in discrete, very separate terms. But considering that said writers now account for the vast majority of wine's reviewed, do not their standards matter as much, if not more than those of the founder? It's all well and good that Parker himself refuses special treatment (a claim that itself seems a bit dubious), and deems his reviews untainted, but what of the thousands of other reviews that are written on his behalf?

I understand Parker's decision to eschew advertising revenue, and think it should be applauded. That said, it doesn't give him the right to a high horse and impossible claims. Unless every wine is reviewed in a consistent, completely blind tasting environment, with no given information but the glass in front of the judge, then there can be no legitimate claim to impartiality. Hell, even in the aforementioned ideal environment, fairness falls apart, as palates and patience tire. Regardless of one's set of personal and professional standards, a wine tasted at 8:00 AM in the office is going to taste different than one consumed after a hearty Cassoulet in a fine cafe in Nimes.

Honestly, I don't think this is going to be the end of the Advocate, and it probably won't diminish Parker's influence in any real way. I don't mean to denigrate the man or his magazine: The Wine Advocate is a great resource for information and tasting notes, and Parker's heart is certainly in the right place. It's just the mythology of veracity that has developed around the magazine's grading system, which likens wine to high school chemistry Scantron quiz, that corks my bottle. I feel that recent events have drawn back the curtain a little bit, and hope that fervent Parkerites will bear them in mind before buying into the next 100-point hype.

If you'd like to learn more about Robert M. Parker, Jr. and The Wine Advocate, head down to your public library and pick up "The Emperor of Wine" by Elin McCoy, for a fascinating look at this controversial man.

But don't take my word for it.