Barolo vs. Bordeaux and the role of Robert Parker

After talking so much about high-end wines recently I went on a search to find out what's actually about these two "Kings of Wine" - Barolo vs. Bordeaux. And I came across an interesting anecdote linking Robert Parker into that discussion.

Back in 2011, Robert Parker's right-hand man Antonio Galloni hosted a first ever The Wine Advocate sponsored for-profit wine tasting - featuring the 15 star Barolos for the "Festa del Barolo" at Del Posto, which just before earned a fourth star from the New York Times. 

One of the participating wine cellars said "Such an event will go down in the history of Barolo as a milestone, the definitive recognition of our land and our wines". That gives us a clear indication to which extent the marketing through the critic Robert Parker influences future sales. Clearly, the event did not go down well in Bordeaux. 

Surprisingly, however is that Robert Parker (as it has been said) generally prefers Bordeaux - as somewhat hinted to when looking at all the wines that scored perfectly 100 points. These were  69 (30%) from the Rhône, 53 (24%) from Bordeaux, 45 (20%) from California, and only 3 (1.3%) from all of Italy. What do you think here about clear indications?

The event was meant to debut the "Wine Advocate Collectors Series", but I haven't found records of many subsequent events - and definitely not involving Bordeaux tastings. 

So what do you think? Barolo vs. Bordeaux? Any preferences? How much should a critic implicitly promote specific wine regions through organized tastings?