For what it's worth, further discourse about Parker revolves around the controversial wine bloggers and his blatant disregard about their existance as credible review sources.

http://www.winebloggersconference.org/

Several boards have pointed to Parkers comments around the lack of credibility with the thousands of blogs out there that are starting to change the way the public views how to analyze wines, which may be contributing to why fewer people subscribe to the publications. I know a flurry of professionals have blogs and have commented that Parkers analysis of a specific style of wine does not appeal to every palate, instead you look at the palate of those who drink wine (male/female/regional/with food/no food) and latch onto those who you like. (referencing the bloggers or blobbers as he called it). This set off alot of fury.

Knowing many in the wine industry, wineries definitely make wines to appeal to the palates of the tasters of the major publications. I feel, like any industry, more power to them for trying to generate revenue and knowing the power of the magazines and the publications to generate revenue. The same for those smaller wineries that craft based upon their own terroir or style. However, I think a shift is happening as Parker called out bloggers who received free wine and having allegedly no moral ground for wine reviews and credibility, even if the blogger was a certified sommelier through CMS, the only international guild for certified sommeliers. (not meant to take away from the many ways to get a certification). If he's getting special treatment, what right have you to criticize a wine blogger or regional publication?

I have lost my respect for not just Parker, but for many within that circle as more defensive and almost offensive comments are made (on his blog) from the blogging review circle that has, IMHO, quite a potential to offer more depth of reviews once the newness wears off and the stand outs set themself apart.