In Which a Print Columnist Proves That Bloggers Aren’t All That Bad
Steve Heimoff is occaisionally disdainful of wine bloggers because we lack the measured professionalism and editorial oversight of print writers.
As a contrary argument, I give you: Mike Dunne of the Sacramento Bee, who completely and utterly botches his analysis of HR 5034. His assessment?
If enacted, HR 5034 could compel states to repeal the standards and safeguards they have set up to oversee the shipment of wine…
To give you an example of what compel means, when Congress wanted states to lower their speed limits to 55 piles-per-hour, it compelled the change by threatening to withhold billions of dollars in highway funds from any state that didn’t go along. Had Mr. Dunne or any of the newspaper’s no-doubt-very-professional editors read the law before going to print, they might have noted that it takes no position on direct shipping at all and, obviously, contains no threat of retribution. In short, it compels nothing.
Dunne makes other mistakes that are just as embarrassing. He claims that, in Granholm, ”the nation’s top jurists said people who enjoy a glass of wine with dinner should be free to buy that wine direct from wineries,” which is not at all what the Supreme Court decided. He says that with the Repeal of Prohibition “states retained a measure of control over the sale of alcoholic beverages,” when in fact the 21st Amendment that repealed Prohibition gave states complete control of alcoholic beverages within their borders. He even squeezes Sarah Palin into the narrative.
No blogger was ever sloppier.
April 28th, 2010 at 8:09 AM
You’re going to mine this bill for hits as long as you possibly can, aren’t you?
April 28th, 2010 at 8:50 AM
Hard though it may be to believe, I’m actually pissed off by how bad the coverage of HR 5034 has been.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Tom:
Press coverage of alcohol regulation is often off the mark where details are concerned. The primary reason is that it’s pretty complex stuff.
For example, the three tier system is a very unusual system by which the state mandates a particular path to market. This is very unusual and often misunderstood because of unusual nature. Add to that the details of a pretty complex SCOTUS decision and you have the makings of confusion.
In my mind, the best way to describe the impact of HR 5034, were it to pass, is this way:
“HR 5034 will lead to a number of states passing discriminatory bans on wine shipping that cannot be challenged in court. This in turn will severely harm wineries and retailers, and cut off consumers from purchasing the wines they want, forcing them instead to purchase the wines wholesalers think they should buy.”
Keep up the coverage, Tom. Even the coverage the corrects the record.
May 6th, 2010 at 12:38 AM
“I’m wrong a lot.” Ahh, remind me, who said that?
May 6th, 2010 at 10:54 AM
I know the answer to that! It was: me!