Oooooow! Who will be judged? At least Matt Kramer's piece in the Wine Spectator admits that there are wine bloggers in contrast to several years ago when Alder Yarrow in his eminent Vinography blog bemoaned the fact that we were not acknowledged at all in the mainstream media, but it is a back-handed compliment, if it can be called a compliment at all. Essentially, Kramer bemoans the democratization of wine information. He describes "one of the peculiarities of wine discussion on the internet...[as] simultaneously deflating and inflating." He goes on to define the "deflation part...[as] a welcome demolishment of barriers to self-expression....The inflating part is a 'wisdom of crowds' preening about how we know best....The real issue is who gets to be believed." He goes on to describe a tasting group he leads where "over time our individual tasting strengths and weaknesses became unmistakable." That's good ! That's called reliability. "Above all, we knew whose judgment to respect and whose to discount." Again, reliability. "The challenge today for those who wish to acquire credibility is to demonstrate a foundation of knowledge." How does Kramer demonstrate his credibility? By tasting lots of free samples? By going on junkets? By getting paid ads from wineries reviewed? By WSETs, MWs or Master Sommelier credentials? Has he reported his activities to the Federal Trade Commisssion? "Have you published a nice little monogragh on the subject, having visited the zone, talked to the producers, tasted multiple examples from multiple vintages?" Have YOU, Matt, published 'a nice little monograph on the subject."? I remember when you were a fairly decent wine writer for a local Oregon newspaper. You were kind of like a proto-blogger. You had some cred. Now you claim cred because writing for one of the major wine media seems to have gone to your head . "Give us some reason to credit [YOUR] judgement." What's the bottom line? Will print media go the way of the buggy whip?Who will be left standing on judgement day?