Another Article About Buffalo Trace--Forbes Magazine

[Kyjd75]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2014/07/30/liquor-of-legend-the-distillery-behind-buffalo-trace-bourbon-blantons-and-pappy-van-winkle/

[nd2005]

My only real complaint with the article is their odd fascination with taking digs at EH Taylor's title of Colonel. Have they never heard of Kentucky Colonel's before?

[tanstaafl2]

My only real complaint with the article is their odd fascination with taking digs at EH Taylor's title of Colonel. Have they never heard of Kentucky Colonel's before?

I agree, it seemed like a rather unnecessary dig at Col. E.H. Taylor, Jr.'s honorary but well earned title that indicated the writer's ignorance on the subject more than anything else. For somebody whose bylines says he writes about "people who build businesses" one might have thought he could have a bit more respect for a businessman of some note in his day, or at least do a bit more research on his subject.

Then again it is not like I am going to routinely turn to Forbes for insightful knowledge about the industry and in particular its history. Largely another fluff piece using PVW in the headlines to attract attention it seems to me.

[Quantum]

I can't, get past the authors atrocious use, or more appropriately, misuse, of punctuation - and, yes I know it is something I have trouble with, as well.

[squire]

Something to pass the time while waiting in the Dentist's office.

[nd2005]

Largely another fluff piece using PVW in the headlines to attract attention it seems to me.

That's true. I re-read it after my morning coffee when more brain cells were active. It's pretty fluff heavy and lacks any real investigation/research. Just builds up the allure and "mystery" of BT with silly stories like ETL digging through the warehouses for a secret special recipe bourbon that had never been used. Much of the information the author claims is a "mystery" would be readily available with a google search.

[squire]

Or a simple question posted here.

[dcbt]

I can't, get past the authors atrocious use, or more appropriately, misuse, of punctuation - and, yes I know it is something I have trouble with, as well.

Every once on awhile I get a glimpse into how much editing takes place for periodicals. I've had email conversations with some journalists, and some responses I got looked like they were written by 8 year olds.

[squire]

I get the impression the author was assigned the piece, told how many words to write, given general instructions on what to emphasize and how to wind it up. Is that about how it works Clay?

[cowdery]

Surprised he got that 3 million production figure out of Brown. Otherwise, the writer seems more interested in showboating than reporting. "Unshakable English accent." Really? What's that for?

[risenc]

I get the impression the author was assigned the piece, told how many words to write, given general instructions on what to emphasize and how to wind it up. Is that about how it works Clay?

Different strokes for different folks. With most journalists and their editors, it's a fluid relationship -- sometimes the journalist comes up with an idea and pitches it, sometimes the editor has the idea and tells the writer what to do. And in any case, once it's turned in the editor has wide discretion to alter the piece as he/she fits. Whether they use that discretion, though, is a different story.

If I can mount my high horse for a moment: Generally speaking, outside of the best publications, we're seeing a long-term decline in editing skills. There are some fantastic reporters these days -- but a poorly kept secret in the sausage making is that great reporters aren't always great writers (ergo, "Get me rewrite!") It used to be that a great editor would then take the copy, blast the writer with questions, maybe do some of his/her own reporting, revise the text so it reads like an adult wrote it, and then have an expert copy edit the heck out of it. The writer accepts this, because in the end it's his/her byline, and they get to look good, and maybe go on TV, get a book deal, whatever. But media companies increasingly see this sort of manpower as expendable -- they're not generating content, they work behind the scenes (and so don't create celebrity that can boost the paper), and they slow down the production process. To make things even worse, such editors used to stick around for decades, because the work is stable and interesting. But that means they weigh down payroll. So you've seen more and more of them get canned, or pushed out to pasture, in favor of younger people who don't really know the business, or the world.

So, Squire, to make a short answer long -- yes and no. But unlike in the past, such assignments, when they do come, don't necessarily come from wise old editors with vision, but from overworked, underpaid and underappreciated toilers, who probably don't know enough to ask the tough questions.

[PaulO]

This is just an observation. It seems to me that the more some one really knows about bourbon, the less likely they are to mention PVW on their own. Granted this article was about BT, but it had to come around.

[squire]

It could be argued Pappy references mark one as unknowledgeable.

[393foureyedfox]

used to be that if someone knew nothing of bourbon and were asked to name a bourbon, it was MM or JB that was blindly mentioned, now its Pappy. Even my dad knows Pappy now, and he hasnt touched any bourbon as long as ive been alive, that Ive seen.