Well this thread took a swift turn into Chuck bashing. I don't know that Chuck has been unfair to micros, or played any favorites with the big boys. But even if that's your opinion, isn't it unfair to assume its because of some pecuniary interest or resulting from some type of cronyism?
I don't know Chuck, but even if I initially perceived uneveness in reporting (which I really don't), upon further reflection, and prior to posting something on a message board, I would conclude that it boils down to this: trust.
Trust is earned. An upstart micro has no trust to begin with, unless its someone with a reputation and history in the industry. An upstart micro that starts out with half-truths and evasiveness has substantially hindered the chance of developing trust.
A big boy, say BT or Jim Beam, has built up a level of trust through the years. Like any relationship there are breaches here and there, but usually the trust earned through the years warrants the benefit of the doubt.
Those big boys have been in the industry, with Chuck, for a long time-some level of trust has developed. It's the same with me - if a Joe Schmo Micro tells me he made a bourbon that is the best he's tasted, I'll take it with a monster grain of salt. If the BT master distiller tells me he made a bourbon that is the best, I'm lining up at the door. He's earned my trust through past products.
Again, I don't know Chuck at all, but from a purely writer-reader relationship, he's certainly earned my trust, and I have no reason to believe any uneveness in reporting some of you perceive is anything more than those whom earned his trust v. those whom have not.