Long ago, the first time I edited American Brewer magazine, I became concerned about journalistic ethics in our business. I don’t recall the details (no surprise there!), but the bottom line was that when they receive free trips or other items of substantial value, they should acknowledge this in their writing. I wrote an editorial about this, and it upset a few folks.

Paid trips are common in the magazine business, but I almost never see them acknowledged in the resulting articles. In this sense, beer journalism might be ahead of its more mainstream cousins.

Years ago I saw a prominent (to us, at least) beer writer run though a selection of beers on the Today Show. Later I learned that he was doing paid work for the brewers of the beers he’d shown. Needless to say, this was not mentioned on the show. Based on that, I would say some beer publications can be trusted more than a major television network.

Many of the conflicts in beer coverage are at beer papers, whose writers often receive free beer at local breweries and pubs. These are small things, but they could be quite important at the local level.

Trust is a slippery slope. People you can trust have no qualms acknowledging goods received, and would also admit that this might bias them. People you shouldn’t trust say no such thing. Who are they? It’s hard to tell.

So what if “hobbyists” aren’t completely impartial? Does it really matter? What is the point of most beer writing anyway? Is it some sort of policing mechanism or is it just fun to write and fun to read about beer? This brings us back to Hieronymus’ original question, the point of beer criticism. I maintain that a lot of beer writing is not to police brewers. Sure that can be part of it, but what’s so wrong with a story that emphasizes the good over the bad? Can’t we just have a beer story that’s entertaining and informative without being constantly scrutinizing? Leave that to the investigative journalists. We don’t want their holier than thou attitude anyway. It’s not journalists that make the world go round. Mostly, they’re just there to tell everyone else what is making the world go round. And sure, I hope that they are truthful in their reporting, but I’m fine with beer writers taking some liberties, accepting free stuff, and gushing over the good while ignoring the bad, particularly when the bad isn’t that bad.

Of course, as a “hobbyist” writer myself, I’m defending it. But at the same time a lot of your thinking about this seems to be influenced by a sincere contempt for hobbyist writers, as if they give you a bad name or hurt the field in some way. Every industry has hobbyist writers. If you’re so much better than a hobbyist just be confident in that and get over it.

“…While your average journalism school graduate will have to take and pass a class involving a discussion of journalistic ethics, and the professional newspaper reporter is bound by his or her employer’s code of conduct, the hobbyist writer lacks any true ethical guideposts beyond their own creation or adoption.

It is my belief that this lack of ethical guidelines has caused beer writing to lack professionalism…”

I think you have left the impression that “hobbyist writers” are the cause of the problem yet you go on to criticize the holding of two professions in relation to beer when on of those is writing. If there is a problem, it is solely amongst the pros as hobbyists have no journalistic burden. That being said, I acknowledge I am a semi-pro in the way that I am a home brewer…and that is a little like a little learning.