Michael Fridjhon: The price of silence – why SA wine needs honest criticism
By Michael Fridjhon, 20 August 2025
-
Share:
32
There’s not much we should thank Donald Trump for, but the one imperial gesture which has restored an air of sanity to social discourse is the nail he has struck into the coffin of gender proliferation and wokery. With the exception of extremely rare gender dysphoria, it’s safe to say that the First World’s obsession with a smorgasbord of sex/gender options, and the cancel culture fascism which helped to drive the juggernaut, has been brought to a halt. It won’t completely vanish overnight, and its consequences will be with us for as long as the surgically “transed” pre-puberty kids live out their lives in an ungendered nomansland.
I’m ready to concede that this is an unlikely way to begin a column about wine. But in the madness which ensued when the fashion of political correctness was able to gain access to the nuclear deterrent of cancel culture, the most immediate and obvious victim was common sense: we can be certain that a male sex offender masquerading as a woman (because he/she says he/she identifies as such) is likely to cause havoc in a female prison. There are things which we just know to be right/correct/appropriate and we don’t need to waste time trying to imagine the exceptional circumstances where the suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are activities/issues which are so nuanced that it doesn’t appear possible to have any kind of consensus. One of these is criticism – meaning the critical appraisal of art, or wine, or fine dining. Partly this is because once a judgement is based on subjectively selected criteria, it’s difficult to assert that the opinion which flows from it is anything but relative.
But it is easier to make a case for the role of criticism – however flawed – and the rights and entitlements of critics compared with those they criticise. Criticism shouldn’t be malicious, nor should it be used deceitfully (such as to undermine one producer because another producer has paid the critic to do so). This doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be hurtful, just as long as the critic is not using the occasion to show off his virtuosity as a writer, or simply to exercise his power over a victim.
It flows from this that sometimes the power of the critic – and the power of whoever is being criticised – should be taken into account. If a food writer who can make and break restaurants hammers a three star Michelin restaurant because it’s not living up to its pretensions, he’s doing exactly what is expected of him. But if he does it to a start-up local bistro, the disproportion between force and object emits the unpleasant odour of bullying. And when an important advertiser tells a publisher to spike an honestly written article because it reveals some uncomfortable truths he would rather keep hidden, that smacks of censorship.
South Africa’s wine writing fraternity has long been a threatened species. In the 1980s and 1990s every serious publication employed a wine writer. Consumers were hungry for guidance and producers recognised that editorial played an important role is helping the wine market to evolve. This doesn’t mean that producers were happy when their products got a bad press. But even the biggest wine business in the country at the time recognised the importance of objective commentary. When it found it was being hammered on a regular basis it didn’t “cancel” the critics: it called a one-day symposium (to which all of the serious wine writers were invited) to clear the air and find a way forward.
Today there are probably fewer than five serious wine writers in South Africa. There are no print publications which focus on wine: even the foodie glossies seem to have forgotten that wine should be an integral part of their message. The crass expectation that advertising is a trade exchange for editorial has so contaminated the environment that no one expects objective content – and amazingly, as a result, hardly ever gets it.
This article is not an impassioned plea to all the WineMag readers who have steadfastly avoided paying for content. (It should be, because if you’re drinking good wine you should be able to invest R55 per month to keep the last consumer-facing wine publication in the country alive). It’s about the importance of a free press, whether about wine, food, or news. After all, if there hadn’t been a Daily Maverick, it’s unlikely that the leaks which revealed the extent of State Capture would ever have seen the light of day.
It’s about demanding a culture of critical engagement in the world of Cape wine. We need thoughtful, well-informed writers to talk about preferences and options – even if these necessarily involve saying that a well-established producer has failed to connect his vision to the reality of his fruit: you can’t make a Southeastern Australian monster shiraz with grapes from Elim, and an honest journalist has a duty to call it. As long as we hide behind scores – many arrived at in sighted tastings (which means they are little more than an extension of the marketing message) – we reduce commentary about wine to a social media thumbs up/down.
We need writers informed and brave enough to wade in and say what many may be thinking but are either too self-conscious or fearful to say. And we need producers who value the quality and freedom of their wine press more than their precious egos. (Surely they can’t be that insecure they fear that a single negative remark will destroy their brand?) We don’t need anymore tasting notes, ratings out of 100, paeans, panegyrics and praise poems to the vinous equivalent of our World Cup Rugby Squad. We need writers who will talk truth to power, shame producers of over-priced ordinary wines, and think deeply enough about the aesthetics of Cape wine to be able to comment usefully about the entire eco-system.
Demanding and difficult-to-impress consumers are the lifeblood of the wine industry. If anyone really wants to know why Millennials and Gen Zs are not embracing wine with the same fervour as their parents, it might be because they have seen through the charade and will have nothing to do with the old deal. They don’t want the industry to decide what they should drink, and at what price. They don’t want the assumption of rarity (which leads in turn to the take-it-or-leave-it marketing of stock allocations). They may not yet know what they want, but they know they don’t want to be talked down to. FOMO may sell wine for a while but it won’t provide allure. The next generation of wine lovers wants a real engagement. An honest, thoughtful and thought-provoking wine media offers the only real referee between producers who have become accustomed to calling the shots and the still tentative curiosity of newcomers who want and need to discover the endless fascination of the vinous universe.
- Michael Fridjhon has over thirty-five years’ experience in the liquor industry. He is the founder of Winewizard.co.za and holds various positions including Visiting Professor of Wine Business at the University of Cape Town; founder and director of WineX – the largest consumer wine show in the Southern Hemisphere and chairman of The Trophy Wine Show.
-
Share:
Related articles
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Fridjhon: Wine’s downturn and our slim chance to save it
23 July 2025
Christian Eedes’s editorial entitled “SA’s wine quality gap widens” published earlier this month highlighted the key elements of what I think is an impending and massive crisis affecting the Cape...
4
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Fridjhon: The rise – and potential fall – of the Cape sommelier
11 June 2025
You would have to search long and hard to find any use of the word “sommelier” in the context of the Cape wine industry twenty-five years ago. People who sold...
5
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Fridjhon: Challenging the myths about Johannesburg’s wine culture
14 May 2025
I mulled for over a month on how best to respond to Christian Eedes’s editorial published on 17 March and headed “The Great Divide - Cape Town vs. Johannesburg market...
GillesP | 20 August 2025
Hello Michael. I loved your piece and most and foremost your first paragraph.
Ryan Coetzee | 20 August 2025
The rant about trans in the opening is gratuitous. It has nothing to do with the piece. It seems it’s just something Mr Fridjhon wanted to say, and he used this piece to say it. I won’t respond to the substance of the views expressed because I doubt anyone wants this site to become a setting for a debate about trans issues, but I thought I would mention the unnecessary incongruity here – the price of silence would be too great not to.
hennie | 20 August 2025
Triggered?
Jos | 20 August 2025
Like Ryan, I also think the trans debate should be left off these forums as it’s off topic and a good-faith debate around it is impossible.
Since MichaelI opened that can of worms, I will say that he, like so many others, have fallen for the lies of the far-right propaganda machine around this issue. While there is certainly a robust debate needed around gender affirming care for minors, the idea that pre-puberty kids are getting “surgically transed” is just a lie.
And I quote: “A new study by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found little to no utilization of gender-affirming surgeries by transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) minors in the U.S. ”
The fact is that these surgeries are simply not being done on kids in the US and if you believe that you need to rethink your news sources as you are being lied to. That goes for you too, Michael.
Jenna | 20 August 2025
As a paying subscriber, this article is making me seriously consider unsubscribing.
FrankH | 20 August 2025
Absolutely agree, Jenna.
There are more than enough spaces, where angry old white males can lament. Why here in a wine blog?
By the way, the first paragraph shows clearly why guys like MF have and will have no clue about drinking habits of GenZ…
Michael Fridjhon | 20 August 2025
To all who chose to ignore then main thrust of the article and swallowed the bait of the opening paragraph: well done. You completely validated my argument. You have engaged in abuse and threats of withdrawal of support of WineMag because you read something you didn’t like and want to shut it down.
I frankly don’t care about the trans issue which I consider a matter of individual choice. But I do care about cancel culture and bullying into silence people whose views are not the same as your own. This is what has been happening to WineMag – which remains the last independent bastion of commentary about wine published in South Africa.
Jos | 20 August 2025
It’s the free market, they get to decide who gets to review their products. That’s capitalism, not “cancel culture”.
Also, with your “bait” you showed that you cannot even bother to fact check if the right-wing commentators you follow are even telling you the truth on these matters you claim not to care about. Not very good journalism, is that?
Gareth | 20 August 2025
If you were to say something controversial about wine or the wine industry and not about completely unrelated matters, I expect that we would all be listening and engaging with interest…
Jenna | 20 August 2025
Michael, what actually irked me is that this is the second article in the last month or so published on Winemag where an older generation has spoken on the preferences of a younger generation without actually asking someone from that demographic for their opinion. There are plenty of articles in circulation regarding the drinking choices of Millennial and Gen Z consumers, but very few that have been written by an actual Gen Z or Millennial. In contrast to what is being regurgitated by most, there is actually a resurgence busy happening wherein Millennials have quite a large buying power in the wine industry (https://www.wineenthusiast.com/culture/wine/millennials-wine-collecting/?srsltid=AfmBOoqTPWYDCY7jwTiHd9q-b0bXly5tOldG5TCZWThm8B8KSswT-7bs). One thing I know for sure is that Millennials and Gen Z do not like being told what trends to follow and being told what to like/dislike. We are a more conscious “woke” consumer type.
GillesP | 20 August 2025
I totally agree Michael. Rest assured, you not alone. The political correctness has become unsufferable.
Ryan Coetzee | 20 August 2025
Michael – I have not engaged in any sort of abuse or threat, as a cursory reading of my comment makes clear. I have also not engaged in the substance of your views on trans issues. But you are disingenuous when you claim that you “don’t care about the trans issues.” You clearly do. And you did not bring it up simply in the context of cancel culture – you use the opportunity to express yourself on the subject of trans women in prisons, for example. Look, no point being defensive: it was a bizarre but telling choice to open your otherwise engaging piece with the trans stuff. You have your views: fine. Canvass them to your heart’s content on X or in a relevant publication. Why not stick to wine in Wine Mag?
Wessel Strydom | 20 August 2025
Well said Ryan
Simon | 20 August 2025
If anyone wants seriously to engage with the politics and history of trans identity, this excellent discussion is a good place to start: https://thedigradio.com/podcast/trans-children-w-jules-gill-peterson/
Gareth | 20 August 2025
What is going on here? Gender matters are completely irrelevant to the subject of wine . Why start is actually a pretty though-provoking article by first alienating a fair portion of your audience?
And to the editor, why did you allow this tone-deaf article to be published as-is?
Jos | 20 August 2025
It’s not just alienating, it’s parroting lies about things that aren’t even happening. I just want to repeat this for everyone: whatever your position on trans matters is, prepubescent kids are not getting gender changing surgeries in the US. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
And your question around why this rubbish was allowed, might be because like GillesP, the editor also believes this garbage.
GillesP | 20 August 2025
Are you also denying the existence of Wokism? Interesting…..
Jos | 20 August 2025
Here is the definition of woke and its historical context:
“Woke is an adjective derived from African-American English used since the 1930s or earlier to refer to awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination”.
So I definitely agree woke is a thing, but not the bastardised version you are referring to.
Thomas | 20 August 2025
I agree that the first paragraph is gratuitous. It’s a pity that it is included, and I shall ignore it. Turning to the substance of the piece though, I fully agree that “we need producers who value the quality and freedom of their wine press more than their precious egos.” The rhetorical question that MF puts is apt: Surely they can’t be that insecure they fear that a single negative remark will destroy their brand? It is a great shame that producers like Sadie Family Wines and Boekenhoutskloof no longer submit their wines for review on this publication. As consumers of both, I feel let down by their respective decisions. If the decision of the former producer is in anyway related to the views expressed by the editor of this publication on the Swartland Revolution event, that would be very disappointing. I think there are very few of us on here who actually agree with CE in relation to that piece, but he should be allowed to express a view nonetheless. And by withholding wines from review, we the readers are the ones who get punished.
Gareth | 20 August 2025
I’m also gutted that Winemag no longer issues tasting notes and scored for the Sadie Family Wines, although why this is the case is not clear to me. As a regular reader and subscriber, it would be nice to have some insight into this is.
I, like many others I am sure, wait patiently all year for Christian’s review of these wines and to learn at the eleventh hour that there won’t be one this year is disappointing to say the least.
Matthew Ferrandi | 20 August 2025
I must agree with Gareth. I always look forward to Winemag’s Sadie reviews. I really hope they will be able to review in the future.
Guy Cunliffe | 20 August 2025
While I have similar misgivings about some aspects of “wokeism”, I certainly did not expect to confront them on this website. A ridiculous off-topic rant that frankly dissuaded me from reading the rest. Setting this alongside other largely negative recent contributions – diatribes at the expense of sommeliers, ExAnimo, etc. – one wonders how someone could find so much to be so gloomy about in something – wine – that brings such delight and pleasure to so many?
GillesP | 20 August 2025
Well given that it seems there is hardly any forum in the mainstream media where it is allowed for readers to express an opinion given the comments are blocked besides on X, maybe you can grasp the need to voice something somewhere albeit I admit unrelated to wine.
Jos | 20 August 2025
I’m so sorry to hear that. Do you take medication for your persecution complex?
GillesP | 21 August 2025
Well Jo’s to your point about Transgenre statistics made yesterday, I just happened to read this morning in the French respected Newspaper called Le Figaro that according to a research published by an institute from University of California, 2.8M in the USA identified as Transgenre including 748000 adolescent from 13yo to 17yo.
Jos | 21 August 2025
Was it nice to read for a change? Doesn’t change the fact that gender altering surgeries are not happening on prepubescent kids in the US. Which is the claim made by Michael and is still a lie.
GillesP | 21 August 2025
Why do you have to always bring your sarcasm on people having different views that yours? That is exactly what Michael highlighted in his response. Sure we live in a very divided society between Conservators and Liberals who can’t even talk to each other anymore and that has certainly been exacerbated in the recent years by the cancel culture and wokism .
Jos | 21 August 2025
I use sarcasm with unserious people. You cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge that what Michael said is a lie because it doesn’t fit the narrative you are clinging on to. It’s impossible to have a good-faith discussion with people that ignore reality.
Josef | 21 August 2025
As a dedicated reader and paying subscriber of this publication, I, like many others, was bitterly disappointed with the opening of this article. Despite the incessant hand-wringing with regards to the future of the SA wine industry and wine writing on this platform, it doesn’t really seem as if this is a true concern. The opening of this piece gleefully alienates younger generations (as well as a wider reading public). This at a time where everyone is supposedly attempting to get Millenials and Gen Z interested in wine drinking (and by extension wine writing). Since, as has been argued ad nauseam, the future of the wine industry depends on them. However, I can confidently claim that Millenials won’t be won over with this type of deliberately provocative and insensitive writing. We will also not be won over with condescending, snide, and smug comments/remarks. We generally care about diversity, inclusivity and respect. Writers should have their freedom to honestly express their opinions. However, readers should also have the freedom to decide what they read. Do not be surprised if younger generations decide to rather turn to alternative platforms like Instagram, Youtube and blogs to learn more about South African wine – there are some fantastic examples run by truly knowledgeable individuals. A suggestion: perhaps more time should be spent considering how one might recruit, mentor, and encourage a young generation of wine writers and how one might interest younger generations to read Winemag? Ultimately, the industry needs not only wine drinkers, but also those interested in digging deeper, those that appreciate the culture of wine. I suspect this is a crucial time for some serious self-reflection. Where will the next generation of wine writers come from and who will be their readers?
Trevor Gray | 21 August 2025
The opening paragraph was clearly meant to set the metaphorical cat amongst the pigeons! Was this the ideal vehicle? Trans and woke descriptors demand response for many, either in agreement or to lament how the world has gone to hell in a hand basket.
I also recoiled at the narrative initially. I personally find the use of the word”woke” as deliberately dismissive and inflammatory. Could this inclusion be a segue into a reference about black winemakers or “non binary” individuals? One could argue YES if the assumption is taken to its extreme.
All the above deflects and detracts from MF core message in my opinion. This is shown I the often vociferous responses.
The irony is of course that the author set out to provoke and engage those who are interested in the state of the industry. Sadly some responses missed the point?
My summation of the well written piece(my opinion) was that the industry needs passionate and committed wine writers and not puff piece parrots. It has to be acknowledged that some individuals specialize in this form of subterfuge. The inclusion of the thorny topic of certain producers refusing to submit their wines for appraisal is for me valid and highlights the thin skinned and questionable response in it’s intent. Will the wine consumer reject a producers wine if it received a 90 point rather than a 93 point score?
In conclusion it is worth pointing out that the industry needs all the exposure and help it can get and the dismissal of younger wine drinkers is for me akin to the dismissal of climate change. Of course the “woke” moniker does result in a sideshow of sorts. The good Prof’s core message is that robust debate and support for those who strive to deliver this should be supported. The consumer is no fool and should not be treated like one with fake messaging or BS.
Christian Eedes | 21 August 2025
Editor’s note: At Winemag we believe wine does not exist in isolation. It sits at the intersection of some of the defining issues of our time: shifting consumer trends and global trade, climate change and sustainability, and the growing influence of the super-rich, among others. There are important stories to tell about wine and its place in the world, and we welcome thoughtful writing that engages with these themes.
In this case, however, the opening distracted from the article’s core argument about producers and their relationship with criticism. While the intent was never in question, the framing was off, and I should have exercised stronger editorial judgment.
Our focus remains on fostering robust debate about wine and the industry, with the expectation that contributors engage broader issues in ways that illuminate rather than alienate.
Christian Eedes | 21 August 2025
We appreciate all readers’ thoughtful engagement. To return the focus to wine and the industry, comments on this article are now closed. Thank you for your understanding and continued support of Winemag.