Eric Asimov is an old-fashioned newspaperman. Born in New York, where he still lives, he started his career at the Chicago Sun-Times and moved to the New York Times in 1984, when he was in his early 20s. He’s never left, moving from national news to the Living section and from there to the Styles of the Times section, he found his true niche in 1992 when he started the “$25 and Under” column, pointing readers to great-value restaurants. He became chief wine critic in 2004, with two columns – the Pour and Wines of the Times. 

The nephew of the legendary science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, he’s respected for his unflashy (if sometimes ponderous) style, and his obvious honesty, but he hasn’t won any big awards. “I prefer not to have them mentioned,” he told me in an email correcting his Wikipedia entry: “I did not receive a Beard award in 2013, I was inducted into the James Beard Foundation's Who's Who of Food & Beverage in America.” He’s written two books: “How to Love Wine: A Memoir and Manifesto,’’ and “Wine With Food: Pairing Notes and Recipes From The New York Times.’’

Above all, he is a champion of a certain set of values – straightforwardness, a slightly nerdy integrity, and a belief in the primacy of the written word. In his NYT bio he says, “It hurts me to see [wine] reduced so often to tasting notes, those comically over-specific efforts to capture aromas and flavors in a phrase. If you want to know whether a wine smells more like guava or jackfruit, I’m afraid I’m not your guy. Frankly, wine is greater and more interesting than that.”

Asimov is no slouch on social media, maintaining major followings on Twitter and Instagram respectively. But he still gives the very strong impression that he’s a representative of a dying breed, and proud of it. As he says, “I am a writer. That’s what I do best.”

What would you consider was the most important decision of your career in wine?

I don't know that one can ever elevate a single decision as the most important of one's career. At least I can't. But I can single out a stance that perhaps was not the result of one decision but a series of experiences. Let me try to explain: A new beat is difficult for any journalist, as much depends on dedicated experience and developing a context for making considered judgments. This is especially true in wine, which requires a great deal of money to finance travel and acquisition of classic bottles. So understandably, many young wine writers rely on secondary sources and conventional wisdom, at least until they develop the confidence to speak their own minds. I knew this to be the case having spent the 1990s reviewing restaurants before starting to write about wine in 1999. At that time I decided to the best of my abilities that I would speak only from my own experience, even if that meant deviating from the norm. I also wanted my opinions to stem solely from a sincere perspective rather than a desire to provoke or to attract attention. I think that position has served me well.  

Do you consider your career progression to be conventional?

It might have been conventional when I joined The New York Times in 1984. Now it's just archaic. Newspaper wine-writing jobs no longer exist, and nobody stays with a single institution for as long as I've been at The Times. Nowadays, except for the few established print institutions, career paths are almost always invented rather than time-honored.

Do you consider yourself a disruptor – how?

I don't need to apply these terms to myself. Let other people decide. One might have called me a disruptor 15 years ago, when fewer voices were heard and I was taking stances different from other mainstream American wine writers – for example I was faulting high-alcohol, extravagant and overripe wines and praising natural wines, wines made from little-known grapes, and more restrained examples of American Cabernet Sauvignons and Pinot Noirs. Today, I doubt it

Do you consider yourself/your business to be agile amid a changing media landscape?

Agile? This is an odd question for someone who is part of a giant corporate institution like The New York Times. In the newspaper context, The Times has shown itself to be remarkably agile, adjusting to the vast disruptions posed by the internet and the 2008 meltdown to an extent far beyond most newspapers. This has made my job easier as a relatively prosperous media company can afford to finance cultural reporting. It’s a privilege to work for The Times. Less is required of me personally. I write articles, give talks, appear on podcasts, use social media, adjust my reporting and coverage, I hope, to the overriding issues faced by wine. The pandemic years tested everybody’s agility, I think. I’m proud of the articles I wrote in 2020 and 2021.

What are your views on the current wine landscape and where do you see it going?

The quality of wine in general has never been higher, and consumers have never before had access to such a vast diversity of beautiful wines. But the future is uncertain and worrisome. Benchmark wines, which have given generations a measure of top quality, are now far beyond the means of most consumers, especially younger ones. And prices are rising for many small-production, distinctive wines. Currently, young people, faced with restaurant menus offering world-class beers, craft cocktails and mediocre wines by the glass, all costing about the same, are making the rational decision. At the same time, I see many young people drawn to natural wines, not because they are fashionable but because they are good and connote qualities that they favour. In general, natural wine has had a powerful and vastly beneficial effect on wine. Meanwhile, climate change continues to pose an existential threat to wine, not to mention all living things. The wine industry faces crucial issues involving packaging, shipping etc, which will be transformative. I can’t predict where things will go, but given the record of humanity over the last 10 years, I’m not particularly hopeful.

What is the level of knowledge of your wine audience ie what percentage are collectors, investors, keen amateurs

My audience comprises a huge range from those who simply want to be told what to drink with dinner tonight, preferably under $15, to keen amateurs to collectors who may be far more knowledgeable in their particular area of expertise than I am. I also have a lot of novices and young people who want to learn about wine from the ground up. Investors are better served going elsewhere for their leads.  

Yours is an old-fashioned medium - do you think your core audience best responds to analogue?

I am a writer, that's what I do best. When NYT readers no longer respond to what I can offer, I will know it. I am part of the audience for podcasts, video presentations and other creative expressions, so I am open to them. And occasionally my colleagues help me with a presentation, like a piece I did on climate change in 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/14/dining/drinks/climate-change-wine.html But I am basically a writer.  

What is your attitude toward influencers? Are there any that you particularly rate?

I consider people like Jancis Robinson and her colleagues at JancisRobinson.com, the Vinous.com crew and others to be influencers. Sommeliers and retail merchants too, along with people who present history, people and information, like Levi Dalton or pressoir.wine. I'm not so interested in those whose influence has a price.  

If you’re starting out as a wine commentator should you be a generalist or a specialist?

That's a great question. It's probably a lot easier to develop context, experience and authority if you specialise, but from my perspective the fun is in the diversity.