I can remember when I was younger watching old black and white movies on TV. I was impressed by the elegant ladies in evening gowns and the suave men in tuxedos. They looked so sophisticated sipping crystal clear martinis while smoking cigarettes. A few years later it was James Bond in a white dinner jacket instructing the bartender “Shaken not stirred.” Oh boy, I couldn’t wait to get my first martini, but I must confess, it is an acquired taste.
The martini is a very simple drink, only two ingredients. Yet so many bartenders make it so badly. There are as many recipes as there are martini drinkers and each is sure that his or hers is the best. Although, unless they’re using my recipe, they’re probably wrong.
So here it is:
Five parts gin. (Yes, gin)
One part vermouth.
So how can you go wrong? For one thing you can skimp on the ingredients. Go for quality not price.
For gin I use Plymouth or Tanqueray. A gin that is too smooth will give a bland drink. A gin that has too many botanicals will give a muddy drink. There are a lot of new craft gins on the market. Most of them command an elevated price. While some are quite good, others can best be described as awful. While you are learning your martini basics, stick to the classic London Dry Gins. If you have any questions, contact The Grumpy Doc. I’ve tried most of them and of course, you know I have an opinion.
For vermouth I use Noilly Prat or Dolin (harder to find). The single biggest mistake of the novice martini maker is to follow the recipe found in many bar guides that calls for a 2:1 gin to vermouth ratio. This leaves you tasting a drink that like it can’t decide what it wants to be. Some people are vermouth minimalists. They either leave it out all together or add only a few drops. Vermouth adds complexity (I know, a nerd word) and without it you have a glass of chilled gin. If that’s what you like, fine. Just don’t call it a martini.
Now for the garnish. The short answer is: “I don’t use one.” I don’t like anything distracting from the crisp flavor of a properly proportioned martini. The classic picture is always two olives on a cocktail pick. But unless you can find olives packed in vermouth, even a small amount of brine will ruin the drink. (Don’t get me started on that crime against nature, the dirty martini.) Occasionally on a hot summer day when I’m on the deck I’ll add a lemon twist, but it can overwhelm the drink.
Finally, we come to Mr. Bond’s instruction. Sorry 007, it’s not shaken. But you weren’t entirely wrong; it’s not stirred either. It’s poured. Mix your martini and pour it into a flask or a cocktail shaker (without ice) and put it in the freezer until it looks like it is starting to thicken. Don’t worry, it won’t freeze. So why poured? If either shaken or stirred for too little contact with the ice, you’ll get a warm drink, and no one wants that. Too much contact with the ice results in a diluted drink. If you like a little dilution in your martini (misguided though that may be) add a tablespoon of water to your mix. Depending on the ice for dilution leaves too much to chance.
Finally, don’t forget to put your glass in the freezer as well. The only thing that keeps your drink cold is the initial chill on the liquid and the glass. A stemmed glass will keep it cold longer; just remember to hold it by the stem.
The Grumpy Doc says “Cheers.”
The 24 Hour News Cycle: Too Much Time, Too Little News
By John Turley
On April 18, 2023
In Commentary
And That’s The Way It Is.
Growing up I can remember anxiously awaiting the news. Either a newspaper arriving twice a day on our doorstep or a well-known news anchor at 6 o’clock on the television. Either way, we trusted we would receive a detailed and thoughtful analysis of current events to give us a basis for understanding what was going on.
I would like to think that those journalists, both print and electronic, were careful about their facts, that they checked sources, that they double checked, that they confirmed wherever possible, and that they didn’t publish a story until they knew they had it right. Newspapers were known to hold back stories, sometimes for weeks, until they could verify all the sources before putting the story on the pages of the paper. They stood behind what they said and had to issue very few retractions. Editorial opinions remained on the editorial page and were seldom ever reflected in the news stories. Walter Cronkite always said when he reported a story “That’s the way it is”. It wasn’t the way it might be or the way he wanted it to be, but it was the way it was.
CNN launched the 24 hour news cycle when it went on the air in 1980. Fox News and MSNBC followed in 1996. They all seemed to present a fairly straight forward reporting of names, places and events, with the major difference being their approach to political stories. I remember during the 2000 political conventions, I enjoyed switching back and forth between CNN and Fox to get a simultaneous view from both sides of the political aisle. But they were the types of differences I expected from differing political parties.
With few exceptions, these were the networks I turned to for the latest update on breaking news like hurricanes, earthquakes, and airplane crashes. It didn’t matter which network I watched because there didn’t seem to be any editorializing of the stories. I usually watched the one that wasn’t showing a commercial when I turned it on.
It seems to me that this changed after 9-11. I had started to notice an increase in partisanship with the coverage of the controversy of the 2000 election, but I expected that would pass after the court cases were settled. However, post 9-11 coverage of the debates over weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq war seemed to increase the polarization, something that has continued to worsen.
With TV 24-hour news channels in constant competition, can reporters take time to check their sources and to verify their stories or must they rush to get on the air? Is it more important to be first than to be correct? Or, are the ratings, and more importantly, the advertising dollars just following the desires of the viewers? Have people come to care less about being informed than about having their preexisting opinions reinforced? Or, do they simply want to be entertained?
It seems to me the news networks now present stories the way they believe the viewers want the story to be, not what is actually true. The founder of a major news network recently admitted in court that his reporters selectively edited stories to create misleading conclusions and at times they reported stories they knew to be false.
Fortunately, there are still print journalists and local broadcast journalists who value integrity over notoriety. Unfortunately, judging by the diminishing number and size of daily newspapers, this option, limited though it is, may not be around much longer. To paraphrase Gresham’s Monetary Law that “Bad money drives out good”, we now have The Grumpy Doc’s Broadcast News Law, “Sensational news drives out accurate news.”
I don’t want to be entertained by the news; I want to be informed. I don’t want to be indoctrinated; I want to get the facts. I don’t want a news reporter to tell me what to think; I want them to give me information so I can make my own decisions.
I’m concerned about the future of news. Will the 24 hour news networks become little more than the province of those who yell first and yell the loudest without regard to the truth of their stories? If they do, where will we go to find out the way it is?
Walter Cronkite would be ashamed.