A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Monday, August 25, 2008 Fraud or Ignorance? By Paul Hsieh @ 1:58 PM Wine Spectator magazine was caught giving out its "Award of Excellence" to a non-existent Italian restaurant, which included on its featured wine list a vintage which the magazine itself once likened to "paint thinner and nail varnish". Writer and wine critic Robin Goldstein created this fake restaurant (complete with realistic website and all) as a test to see if the magazine would simply pocket the $250 entrance fee and give out the Award, or if they would actually do some serious investigation of the restaurant before handing out their stamp of approval. He presented his results at the recent meeting of the American Association of Wine Economists. Here's more information on his methods. So was the magazine acting fraudulently or in ignorance? And is it ethical for individuals or groups to use these sorts of deceptive methods to test the integrity of organizations which purport to offer a value to consumers by rating other businesses and products? Decide for yourself after reading the article. Labels: Business, Ethics Share |    E-mail Paul Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Monday, August 25, 2008 at 13:13:20 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Steve D'Ippolito It seems to me that if they are going to presume to give out awards, or even a rating (similar to stars on a hotel) it's incumbent on them to actually read the material provided, at the very least. Putting their stamp of approval on a restaurant tells the reader that they've checked it out. Clearly in this case they did not. It calls into question their entire review process and the value of their listings, which they no doubt tout as a reason to subscribe to the magazine. I say the magazine got caught with its pants down and deserves what it got.
	Monday, August 25, 2008 at 14:23:13 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Grant Williams E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail Basically, the question of is it ethical to do what Mr. Goldstein did boils down to "is it ethical to take the law into one's own hands?" Presumably, if Mr. Goldstein had taken his suspicions to the police and convinced them that something needed to be done, they would have performed the same sort of sting operation. As the number of comments to this blog's post last week about jury nullification suggests, that issue is a very complicated one. From a cursory glance I would say yes, what Mr. Goldstein did was ethical. Had he alerted law enforcement, given today's morass of bad laws, presuming they even took the case, the cost of bringing Wine Spectator to justice would have far outweighed the $250.00 he spent. Of course, not all of the tax money spent would come from Mr. Goldstein, but it would be worth the added personal cost if he were convinced that the precedent of law and order were paramount. I'm not so sure it is. On a daily basis, I see more and more reasons to begin - slowly and methodically, of course - to take matters into our own hands, and fewer and fewer reasons to trust the government to do the right thing.
	Monday, August 25, 2008 at 14:57:21 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Dan I see no legal wrongdoing on the part of the magazine, so I don't see why it would make sense to go the police. Shoddy research isn't fraud. I see no moral problem with Mr. Goldstein's deception. (It seems morally praiseworthy, if anything.) Deception is wrong when it puts you in conflict with reality; that isn't the case here. There isn't any force or fraud either, unless maybe the submission process involves some explicit contract or something of that sort.
	Monday, August 25, 2008 at 16:00:44 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Mike E-mail: mikedialjatnetscapedotnet I'm a big fan of Howard Stern. Some of Howard's listeners often fool national-level newcasters like Peter Jennings, by phoning in an claiming to be witnessing OJ Simpson running from the law. It just proves that anyone can call a news station and claim to be anyone witnessing anything. The networks seldom check their sources.
	Monday, August 25, 2008 at 21:02:15 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: Adam Reed E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2 In this case, as in the "Sokal Hoax," the tester performed a useful public service. It is a fraud to accept any value, even only the price of a periodical, for work that the payer (such as a subscriber to the Wine Spectator) is led to believe had been done, and that in fact was not done. When the swindler is protected from legal charges of fraud by an intrinsicist understanding of "freedom of the press" (or of "academic freedom" in Sokal, etc.) a freelance "sting" may be the only way to expose the fraud.
	Monday, August 25, 2008 at 22:54:32 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail "So was the magazine acting fraudulently or in ignorance?" The magazine gave an award for excellence to a non-existent entity. So obviously something is amiss. However, given the available information, all one can say is that the standards of the award might be considered 'low'. But, even if true, the granting of a 'wine list' award with a low standard is not the same as either fraud or ignorance. As such, I have to conclude the quoted question is a false alternative. "...is it ethical for individuals or groups to use these sorts of deceptive methods to test the integrity of organizations which purport to offer a value to consumers by rating other businesses and products?" On what basis does one claim it is *not* ethical?
	Monday, August 25, 2008 at 23:20:55 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Jim May E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com BrianS writes: "On what basis does one claim it [clandestine testing] is *not* ethical? " I'm inclined to agree with Brian here. I can identify no right violated, nor any *intended* such violation. Rather, the deception was executed with the goal of checking a product to see if it is as good as its purveyor wants us to believe. This is a standard business practice; competitors routinely test each other's products and services, often clandestinely, to stay on top of what they are offering, and frequently to identify marketing opportunities -- including weaknesses in the competitor's product. Grocery retailers routinely send people to nearby competing stores to covertly check prices, for example. The "deception" in that case only extends to some people pretending to shop when they aren't. Robin Goldstein, a wine writer and critic himself, is one such competitor, who has now shown one of Wine Spectator's "products", their restaurant awards, to be of poor quality. Fortunately, the main value I gain from Wine Spectator is their tasting notes, not the restaurant material.
	Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 5:46:05 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: Grant Williams E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail I would agree with BrianS and Jim May. Earlier, when I mentioned the terms "fraud" and "police", I was assuming a much greater degree of deceit. I reallize that from the information given in the post it is not possible to determine if Wine Spectator violated it's own explicit testing standards. I simply assumed such a thing had occured in order to demonstrate that Mr. Goldstein's actions were ethical; regardless of the degree of negligence/deceit/fraud involved. I wanted to point out that the only ethical consideration weighing against his actions would be that should the matter warrant the involvement of law enforcement, it might be better to defer to it.
	Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 8:55:39 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: Rachel E-mail: raemeg(at)gmail.com I have no idea how this issue would stand in today's law. But I'm reminded strongly of such concerns as Consumer Reports, which verify product quality. Compare such agencies with the FDA, another alleged quality check. Given their nature as guardians of quality and reputation, given that they have made this their purpose, I think it is fraudulent for them to be less than utterly vigilant in their investigative practices. It is one thing for someone to make a claim in ignorance or after incomplete evaluation if it is not that person's job to do so. We don't pay them for such a service. We do pay for watch-dog services. It is a misrepresentation of reality to claim that their award of excellence has merit. It is fraudulent to assign value to it and to charge the price of a subscription. I see what this man did as important in the same way that the police deceive suspects in order to get to the truth of their investigations. He was lying in order to protect a value. This is more than entirely appropriate. It is necessary. He should be paid for what he did. He has my thanks.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 7 plus 9 equals 283695182175139828