Propaganda

Sorry to keep on posting but it's the weekend and it's pretty darned fun and I'm listening to YES.

ANYWAYS, I was just perusing the Beer Advocate website, taking a look at the Wild Blue Blueberry Lager which has found its way to Wegmans' shelves, as well as Kevin's home. Upon research of said brew, I found that it is another attempt from Annheiser-Busch to get a foot in the door into the microbrew market, calling itself an 8% abv blueberry lager.

But I'm not here to discuss this beer specifically, but a person who reviewed the beer on the Beer Advocate website by the name of "rehabis4quitters." This person gave this beer the highest rating out of all 77 reviews; they gave it a B+ while the average is a D. I went to their profile to check their tastes/credentials and noticed that other than the Wild Blue, this person reviewed fifteen beers in the same day. Now that's understandable, maybe this person got excited by the chance of being a reviewer of brews and felt obligated to describe/rate every beer they had had over the last year. BUT, the fishy thing is that of those fifteen beers, every one affiliated with Annheiser-Busch has a rating of B+ or A-, while the only beer reviewed over A- is the Samuel Smith porter. Furthermore, every other macrobrew mentioned in the this person's list doesn't go any higher than B- while the few mentioned American microbrews (that are widely considered delicious, i.e. flying dog, redhook) have a high score of F.

Interesting, don't you think?