Should Negative Reviews be Published?

Let me tell you a story:
An amateur wine writer attended a wine trade-show. He then published (in his blog) notes covering the day’s experiences. One of these notes began:
“The owners of this winery were very friendly and I hope that the wines I tried were off-bottles rather than being representative. As always though, I can only review what is in the glass.”
Following this preface, were brief reviews of three wines produced by Graeme Miller Wines (Yarra Valley, Australia).
The first was lackluster, the second tentatively negative. Lastly was a Rose which was reviewed as follows:
“I’m sorry to say this, but this was the most faulty wine I have ever tasted. Dominant onion skins, rubber, and some barnyard characters on the nose with the palate living up to the promise of the nose.”
Four months later, our wine writer received the following email:
“Cam Wheeler,
I request that all comments referring to our wines on your web site Appellations be removed or will follow up with legal action.
Graeme Miller.”

Let me ask you a question:
Should negative reviews be published?

To begin, in the vast majority of cases, negative reviews are not published. This is especially true for professional writing, but the convention is often upheld by amateur writers (like those of us who write a wine-blog).
Why?
(1) Like many other genres, wine magazines are essentially pornography. Readers visit – via crafted prose and dramatic photographs – magnificent estates and rare elixirs.
(2) Interesting subjects (winemakers, vineyards, etc) tend to be the ones producing high-end wines. Plonk is most often mass-produced, essentially manufactured, as a beverage by technicians, accountants and investors. It is made from grapes grown across non-specific areas. In contrast: philosopher winemakers, exceptional terroir, and historic estates, are more interesting subjects. They also make (often, but certainly not always) better wine.
(3) Almost any critic will admit that there are few truly awful wines. There is, however, an ocean of wine which is mediocre, dull, and/or boring. Writing (or reading) about boring wines is… well, boring.

So what’s the problem?
(1) Winemakers have been spoiled. The fact that wine writing seldom includes negative reviews should not render it outrageous to publish one.
(2) When writing a profile of a wine maker’s portfolio, it is misleading (and dishonest) to skip over wines which deserve a negative comment.
(3) Granting only “the best” wines the publicity of a review increases the pressure on wine makers to produce dramatic (campy), striking (pushy), show-stoppers in order to get noticed.


So, what’s my (partial) answer?
(1) When writing about a finite collection of wines (a wine maker’s portfolio, a merchant’s current offerings, a trade show tasting), every wine should be reviewed.
(2) Producers, like Mr.Miller, need to relax. How many consumers google their options for everyday table wine? At this level, wines are sold by product placement, catchy names, striking labels, etc. Reviews are much more important for premium wines.
(3) Producers must adapt to the internet, where anyone can be a published critic. Absolutely everyone – at a trade show or at the “cellar door” – should be treated with respect. This should not be news.
If any guest expresses a concern that your wine sample may be faulty, it must be treated seriously. The wine should be immediately checked. If it judged to be sound it should be politely explained to the guest that it may be a style of wine not to their tastes.

(4) Bullying with (empty) threats of legal action is not the appropriate response to a negative review. If a producer is really concerned, a repeat tasting can be arranged.
What is the appropriate response to a bully?
Refuse to purchase their products.
...but I digress...