Kirk,
I see my post hit a nerve. I struggled with more detailed responses to Matt, but discarded them. While he put himself into this, I nonetheless don't relish attacking his credibility and integrity. Believe it or not I have always had a certain respect for him despite my constant disagreement with him. The Dittman reference seemed about the least offensive way to say what I wanted to say, because saying nothing doesn't seem right.
David, by throwing out the name Earl Dittman you are essentially alleging that Matt Ward's reviews of courses have no credibility because his purpose is not to actually review the courses but to obtain attention for himself, gain access to courses, and have his reviews be used by clubs to further their marketing efforts. In essence, you are calling him a whore.
I hate to speak for Mr. Dittman, but Earl Dittman doesn't consider himself a "whore" and he isn't
explicitly paid to praise movies. He thinks his reviews are truthful and accurate. Unlike other so-called experts in their ivory towers, Dittman isn't snobby about it and he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about certain styles and certain artists. Many other critics have their mind made up about a movie before they even see it, liking or hating it based on some preconceived notion or expectation about it. They sometimes even pan movies they have never even seen! They are the snobs and the narrow-minded ones, whereas he is out there seeing everything, giving everything a chance and judging it on his own merits. And he doesn't praise everything, and has panned plenty of movies and is proud to say that he has panned some movies that all the other so-called critics automatically thought were so great. As for the junkets, freebies, gifts, access, perks, and sneak peaks, sure he gets that stuff, but not always. He hass had to spend plenty of his own money (or his company's.) Besides, the gifts, access, perks, accomodations, sneak-peeks, etc. are not all they are cracked up to be, anyway.
In other words, Earl Dittman is a hell of a lot like Matt and others who have no problem sometimes taking gifts, access, and freebies even though they are supposed to be objectively praising the gift-horse. But studios know who provides positive press and who doesn't, and they take it into consideration when deciding who will be privy to the perks. Same for the golf industry.
To answer a few of your other points . . . If you don't think Matt's purpose is at least in part to obtain attention for himself, gain access to courses, and have his reviews used by clubs to further their marketing efforts, then you haven't been paying attention. Matt essentially writes fluff pieces on these courses and then tries to sell them to the types of media outlets who are NOT going to carry anything excessively critical about these places. The golf industry doesn't bash the golf industry, and travel rags and local news rarely bash the local destinations. And while golf courses don't use the same advertising model as the movie industry, Matt's reviews are sometimes used directly by those courses to promote themselves.
But I didn't call Dittman a whore. You did.
So Kirk, if Dittman is a whore, then why isn't Matt?
Do you have proof? Do you have more than what "may" be true, or "might" be true? Can you connect the dots between a positive review of an otherwise critically-panned course that he has either posted or published, and use of that specific review by the course?
Proof of what? Matt has admitted that sometimes these places give him gifts and perks like accommodations, food and drink, free golf, and access. I'd be shocked if he's never received promotional merchandise like shirts, hats, bags, whatever. Hell, rumor has it that even a lowly rater or two gets offered that stuff on occasion. He reviews those courses without bothering to mention the consideration, and what do you know? Many of these reviews and articles are very positive.
Let's take his two of his most recent
new reviews for example. Cornerstone and Red Ledges. I'll bet that
in addition to access and free golf (which are themselves quite valuable) Matt received consideration of significant value from at least one of these places, including (but not limited to) first class accommodations and food and drink.
What say you Matt? You've already told us that receiving valuable consideration could never impact your opinion, so why not tell us what you got and let us make up our own mind. Provided we could get the access (which we probably couldn't) what would have your experiences at Red Ledges and Cornerstone cost, rack rate, for "Joe Six Packs" like me and Kirk?
And Kirk there is another issue here as well, and that is whether Matt is actually ever paid explicitly paid to promote the places he promotes . . .
_______________________
Matt,
I was and am very hesitant to bring this up, but I guess we should just clear the air. My understanding is that your PR practice was aimed at representing various golf related entities and activities such as golf travel and leisure, golf tournaments, golf real estate developments, golf course developers, and golf architects. My understanding is that your firm represented courses that have repeatedly praised, and about which you have written and published reviews, and not just here. This sure as hell isn't consistent with what you said in your last post to me about your PR experience..
But then maybe I am misinformed? Is my information incorrect or have I misunderstood i? Honestly I hope so.
_________________________________
On what I hope is a lighter note . . .
Although not about a golf course, here is very
Dittmanesque "Editorial Review" from Amazon.com from Matt"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0977659003/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books"
…The Bare Essence of Golf delivers no less powerfully than a Tiger Woods tee shot." -- Matthew J. Ward / Golf and Travel Writer 2006
The product in question was apparently some sort of instructional or inspirational calendar . . . available at a Mens Club near you?
Delivers no less powerfully than a Tiger Woods tee shot? At least now we know what turns Matt on.