The moral: That the wine business and the Winestream Media would ruin a cure for cancer with too much oak and alcohol
The following story is true, though I’ve changed some of the details to protect the innocent (and myself). And I barely exaggerated at all.
“I need a rose story,” said the magazine editor.
“Fantastic,” I said. “It’s good to see that rose is popular enough that you’re asking me to write about it. You know, I like to take just a tiny bit of credit for the rose boom, since I’ve been writing about it for so long.”
“Yeah, yeah, yeah,” said the editor. “That’s wonderful. Here’s the premise of the story. Rose is so popular now that winemakers are improving the quality by making more expensive ones.”
“Wait a minute,” I said. “That’s not true. ….”
“What’s not true?” said the editor. “Expensive wine is always better. Where have you been?”
“But the whole idea of rose is that it’s cheap and tasty and you don’t need to spend a lot of money.”
“Yeah, if you want to drink a wine that doesn’t have any oak or is low in alcohol. Why would anyone want to do that?”
“I don’t understand,” I said. “Oak in rose?”
“What’s wrong with you?” asked the editor. “All wine should have vanilla flavors. I thought you were the expert. Don’t you even know that?”
“I’m missing something here,” I said. “Rose doesn’t need to be aged in oak or have 15 percent alcohol. It’s supposed to be fresh and light and new every vintage. Otherwise, it’s red wine.”
Sigh. How many times have we heard that before?