A dustup at Dr. Vino -- aka Tyler Colman, Ph.D -- throws an unflattering spotlight on the pervasive conflicts of interest in the world of big-time wine criticism.

Dr. V takes on the gold standard of high-integrity critics, Robert Parker, whose Wine Buyers Guide stakes out his moral high ground. As quoted by Colman:

It is imperative for a wine critic to pay his own way. Gratuitous hospitality in the form of airline tickets, hotel rooms, guest houses, etc., should never be accepted either abroad or in this country… In order to pursue independence effectively, it is imperative to keep one’s distance from the trade. While this attitude can be interpreted as aloofness, such independence guarantees hard-hitting, candid, and uninfluenced commentary.

But instead of going mano a mano with the Big Guy, Colman targets Parker's second-string associates, Jay Miller and Mark Squires, who may or may not have flagrantly crossed Parker's bright line to pocket an assortment of hospitality and travel swag. Then, in an archly worded "When did you stop beating your wife?" style-email, Colman inquires of Parker when the Wine Advocate changed its ethics policy.

And, in a move with its own troubling  ethics, Colman publishes his private email exchanges with the entire Dramatis Personae. Parker comes off as a word-parsing lawyer (who is currently backpedaling from unqualified support of his staff), Miller as a petulant whiner, and Squires as the arrogant sycophant many know him to be.

Nail-biting stuff, if you enjoy dueling egos in high-end wine criticism. And the comments -- from a Who's Who of online wine writers -- surpass Colman's original gauntlet-toss.

But the issues transcend the personalities, and impact every level of wine writing, including our peninsular backwater of the wine world.

Wine writing has come a long way since mid-century Britain, where it was deemed not just acceptable but normal for prominent critics to operate wine businesses or serve as paid consultants to the trade. On the other hand, no aspiring critic starting from scratch today could afford to adopt Parker's absolutist stance unless blessed with a fortune earned elsewhere or backers similarly endowed, such as the Wall Street Journal's Gaiter and Brecher.

Most wine writers, in Michigan and elsewhere, daily tiptoe through ethical minefields as best we can. We accept winery hospitality and gratis samples, telling ourselves we can still write objectively about the people and places involved -- and perhaps even better because of our "access", whether in the form of private barrel tastings or lengthy discussions over dinner on someone else's tab.

Some of us write for publications that take advertising, or even sell products from the same wineries we write about. And, at the far end of the continuum, some writers swap any claim to journalistic integrity for the perks that accrue to those who serve as conduits for industry puffery. That road seduces, because those you cover can offer so much to the wine lover.

Several months back, I nearly slipped across the line, when I asked to sit in at a winemaker-only tasting during the state wine industry annual meeting. How wonderful to be an "insider", listening to the way winemakers dis (as in "discuss") each other's wines with no one around to listen.

Fortunately, the winemakers displayed more sense. They wouldn't permit "media" -- meaning me -- in the room. They understood that part of their job is to critique each other's efforts honestly among themselves. The job of "media" is to tell consumers about those wines, as objectively as we can.

Last weekend, the MichWine tasting panel sat down to taste and review 15 bottles donated by -- no, make that solicited from -- state wineries. I added two more wines purchased on my own dime, because they belonged in the tasting, whether or not the wineries sent us samples.

Not every Michigan winemaker will be pleased when these reviews appear. Next month, we may be buying a few additional sample bottles, instead of receiving them gratis. But Parker is right, even if few inhabit the financial position to walk his absolutist walk: "In order to pursue independence effectively, it is imperative to keep one’s distance from the trade."