Rachael Ray

[JohnL]

It is clear that persona is important here.

The Food Network is attempting to reach a very broad audience.

Rachel R is the perky girl next door who loves to cook and entertain!

Ms Lee is the nice lady down the block who loves to cook and entertain (although we are talking 1959)

If I recall properly Bobby Flay was asked to tone down the NY wise ass attitude so he would have broader appeal.

It's all about image and audience identification.

Often the cooking is secondary.

But for many people out here in the fields (not Virginia Fileds-the nice lady who bakes cookies) cooking is secondary in their lives otherwise they would be watching Colameco, or Trotter or Bastianich on PBS.

People can be as serious as they want and find something out there that floats their boat.

In the end though if food and eating and drinking are more prominent in people's lives to whatever extent-so much the better!

We even have serious (ok fairly serious) and less serious reality cooking shows: Hell's Kitchen and Cooking Under Fire!

All in all if you like food and cooking there is a lot out there where not long ago all we had was Julia!

[BCinBC]

I agree with you JohnL, on the idea that if more people are thinking about food (provisio: good food, not Sandra Lee's shite), we in general are better off. Therefore Rachael Ray (and Flay and Emeril) has her rightful place. However, that doesn't mean I have to like all Food TV personalities.

I love NFL football. I don't love Ray Lewis.

[Mallet]

I don't really mind the sort of show that RR does but comments like

Her skills are as estimable as those of any Michelin-star-winning chef, and they're far more practical. (my emphases)

from the Slate article really bother me. I'd have Ferran Adria cook me a homestyle meal over Rachel Ray anyday!

[iheartoffal]

I think I posted my thoughts on this on the last RR bashing thread du jour, but I thought I'd weigh in again.

Rachel should be held blameless in this. It's not her fault that she's attractive, comfortable in front of the camera, has a decent grasp of the fundamentals of preparing food, and that she just so happened to score a nice gig because of the afformentioned qualities. Furthermore, she didn't set out with the intention of dumbing down the FN, or of appealing strictly to the lowest common denominator among people with only the most passive interest in food. I think she genuinely believes in what she does, and I don't there's anything wrong with trying to appeal to people who aren't willing to spend a lot of time and money on dining out or cooking. Personally, I think she injects a modicum of quality and intergrity, even on the terms of the kind of food she's preparing.

The problem is, she's become sort of an avatar for the demise of the food network as it once was. Is this her doing? No way. Is it Emeril's doing? No. The dumbing down of the FN is almost one of those chicken or the egg sort of conundrums. Is it the producers of the programming that made a conscious decision to replace all of the high-brow programing with much simpler fare, or was it the public that demanded it? Logic would say that it's a little of both. Of course the network is going to do what ever is making them more money. Unfortunately, if Rachel Ray and the umpteenth Unwrapped/Secret Life Of.../Roker on the Road type shows are going to generate the most viewers, then that's what we're going to see more of. It's sad for those of us who have higher standards, but it shouldn't be entirely unexpected.

In short, I'm just as frustrated with the FN as the next guy. It pisses me off that whenever I turn on the tv, all I ever see is Emeril, Emeril, Emeril; and meanwhile, something interesting like Bourdain's special on Ferran Adria can't even get shown in the 4am slot. I'm just not in hurry to blame it on the most visible person, in this case RR.

[JohnL]

I agree with you re: the Food Network.

However as the Food Network grows in its broader appeal the more watered down the content.(though they really should have some room for more serious programs).

A benefit to this may be that , if I am not mistaken, there is more food programming elsewhere on the dial than ever before.

PBS is carrying more than ever, You now have ABC,NBC and Fox in the mix and add Radio (Rocco et al) and there is no doubt that appreciation of food is exploding.

This is all good--though there is room to pick plenty of nits (I am worried that Gordon Ramsey will get a hold of a nuclear weapon and are we ready for a foodie sitcom "Kitchen Confidential"?--does Anthony Bourdain's material need a laugh track?)

all can say is stay tuned--it's gettin jiggy out here!!!

[Tess]

I don't really mind the sort of show that RR does but comments like

Her skills are as estimable as those of any Michelin-star-winning chef, and they're far more practical. (my emphases)

from the Slate article really bother me. I'd have Ferran Adria cook me a homestyle meal over Rachel Ray anyday!

←

That's the thing. It's not RR that bothers me; it's the article.

[JohnL]

Very good point!

Tess-It is Slate afterall.

I guess we can start on the news media--that is those who report and write about the food world.

Is Ruhlman in the house?

[bergerka]

Ok, just for the record, I think anyone who thinks that Rachel Ray is the culinary equivalent of Sandra Lee needs to be tied down and forced to watch every episode of Semi-Homemade Cooking ever. You'll be BEGGING for Rachel after the first fifteen minutes.

I um...kinda like Rachel. She's perky and cute.

[Tess]

Very good point!

Tess-It is Slate afterall. 

I guess we can start on the news media--that is those who report and write about the food world.

Is Ruhlman in the house?

←

To be more specific, the Slate article bothers me as writing that's about the media treatment of the food world.

As much as I like some aspects of Slate and similar online publications, they fill an awful lot of space with writing about stuff like TV shows. (I stopped paying for Salon Premium because it seems silly to pay people to sit around watching TV and making comments about it.) This article is a pretty common format for that stuff: "XYZ is not as popular/unpopular as it should be." Similarly they do a lot of "XYZ is not as important/unimportant as people think." That's about the weakest kind of argument you can make, in my opinion. I think that adding an invidious touch like, "People who dislike XYZ are snobs" is a lazy way of trying to seem controversial. I guess it worked in this case to some extent but I still feel like it's silly.

I also feel that even if you look at her premise, as weak as it is, and say, "OK, I'll play," it doesn't turn out that she supports it that well, but it doesn't really matter. In the end you can't prove or disprove something like how popular a TV personality deserves to be.

[robb]

Listen guys, Rachel is a very positive TV presence. She works hard, her recipes (though simple) have an appeal to a very specific demographic type and that type constitues a large segment of the population.

....

But remember, if the Food Network programmed their shows for people like us, their numbers would never allow them to stay in business. We represent a miniscule percentage of the population.

←

I think that this is a key complaint of many who now criticize FN. When they began watching it when FN was new, it was geared toward foodies. Now it's dumbed down for the masses. One other point - for those who are old enough to have seen Julia Child's cooking shows on PBS know that it is possible to do a cooking show that's well done, uses good cooking techniques and is still fun to watch.

[Megan Blocker]

Yeah.  Okay.  Someone on Slate likes teeny-bopper saccharine cuteness.

←

Here, here. Rachael Ray's "cuteness" is more annoying than anything else about her. I don't have any issues with food that does not take hours to cook, and she has some good tips to share for busy people who would still like to prepare food (washing your greens or herbs when you get home, teaching non-cooks to make quick pasta sauces from scratch).

HOWEVER - bake-off biscuits as a primary ingredient in so many recipes is vaguely reprehensible.

Rachael in no way approaches the ridiculousness of Sandra Lee, however, whose every recipe makes my skin crawl. How did a woman who spends so much time on her centerpieces (or "table-scapes," as she nauseatingly refers to them) figure out so many uses for cake mix?

[MarketStEl]

Having slogged through this discussion with eyeballs intact, I will now toss a few random pebbles into the lake and see what ripples emanate.

On Rachel Ray: I guess I should consider myself fortunate that I have only watched a few episodes of "$40 a Day," including the one where they did Philly (and ate at Villa di Roma in the Italian Market--probably not the 9th Street eatery I would send a budget-minded food traveler to, but then again, the ones I would aren't Italian). But if some of the descriptions of what she does on "30-Minute Meals" I've read here are accurate, then is excessive perkiness a mortal sin? Many was the night when, having pulled back into town at 7 after a one-hour commute and wanting to be done with dinner by 9, I really didn't feel like (a) going through all the steps of doing a really good dish entirely from scratch or (b) stir-fry. Now, I know I can find some good 30-minute meals on Epicurious or maybe even in RecipeGullet, but I don't see anything horribly wrong with using some pre-packaged shortcuts from time to time. (Following a packaged food fad just because it's new is another story.)

On Alton Brown: Shticky his shows may be, but they are incredibly informative and offer all sorts of interesting foodgeekery and more than a little science (I guess these two categories have a lot of overlap).

On Slate: Someone upthread seemed to be under the impression that the publication has officially cast its lot with the anti-"food snob" crowd because of this defense of Rachel Ray. Anyone bother clicking on the "related in Slate links at the end, the first of which takes you to an essay by Slate's food editor ripping into the Food Network in general and Rachel Ray in particular before going on to praise a short-lived BBC series? Slate seems to have become an unusually lively online mag that casts a wide net across politics and culture (high and pop), and I'd say that even if I wasn't acquainted with the guy who writes the "Chatterbox" column.

On Bobby Flay: Someone barbecue him, please.

[Tess]

On Slate: Someone upthread seemed to be under the impression that the publication has officially cast its lot with the anti-"food snob" crowd because of this defense of Rachel Ray.  Anyone bother clicking on the "related in Slate links at the end, the first of which takes you to an essay by Slate's food editor ripping into the Food Network in general and Rachel Ray in particular before going on to praise a short-lived BBC series?  Slate seems to have become an unusually lively online mag that casts a wide net across politics and culture (high and pop), and I'd say that even if I wasn't acquainted with the guy who writes the "Chatterbox" column.

I like "Chatterbox."

If you're referring to me (probably) perhaps I should have specified the author instead of saying "Slate." I certainly don't associate Slate with the particular view expressed in the article. I love Sarah Dickerman's columns.

[coquus]

Ok, ok, i'm not going to take all the nice stuff back I said about Rachel, but she happened to be on today after I made my post, the cooking show this time. I watched for a minute because I was eating and was kind of late, so I noticed she was coming very close to cutting off her thumb when she was chopping zucchini for something or another, that's my biggest pet peeve. I don't care how or what you cook or how bad it is, please don't maim yourself in the process. And that's my problem with all these "foodies" who think they have something to share. Do you know why Jacques Pepin got his first show for PBS? Because he had KNIFE SKILLS.

[etalanian]

I had the occasion to work two days with Rachel Ray doing food styling for one of her book promos when she was in town about 18 months ago.

Rachel is a true media phenomenon. People lined up, standing three or four hours waiting to get their books signed. They weren't sophisticated, or even foodies. Just regular folks. They absolutely adored her. She is cute and perky, yes, but also very accessible to the masses. She isn't stuck up or phoney. WYSIWYG. Gets more viewers than someone who might be more intimidating.

As far as bringing the masses along by baby steps, I don't think so. I think it's wonderful that she has made some of them aware of how to make a simple pan sauce; that is something they might not have aspired to otherwise. But that is the most sophisticated thing she offers them; she doesn't bring them along further in each subsequent book. I think that is also why they love her so much. They don't feel threatened or intimidated or under pressure. They see her on TV doing these simple things using language they use, making meals they can understand, and they identify with her. But I don't think the vast majority of them have any desire to go further. I don't even think most of them cook from the books. I think they simply find her accessible. A "star" they can identify with. And, that's fine. It's entertainment for the masses. And she gets that and makes it work for herself. Good for her.

I'm wondering if the disillusionment with her that I hear running through this thread isn't really anger that FN has betrayed the very people they set out to attract. It was a noble aspiration, but there wasn't enough of a sophisticated base for it to be profitable. It's for profit TV. It's entertainment. Think about what sells on for-profit TV.

That's why the shows are so great on PBS - non-profit - no need to satisfy the shareholders. (So hopefully we are all supporting public TV.)

As for Sandra Lee, I can't even imagine making any of her "recipes." I don't think there is anything even remotely acceptable about them.

Just one woman's opinion. FWIW.

ET

[Grub]

It strikes me that there's something odd about complaining about those who complain. It's like saying it is wrong to go against the majority rule -- as if going against the masses (unwashed or otherwise) is elitists and/or snobbish.

Like most things in the world, Rachel Ray (and any other FN personality) is subject to natural selection, in the sense that if a lot of people like her, she'll stay on, but if a lot of people don't like her, she'll disappear.

And like most things in the world, if you belong to a vocal minority, you might be able to influence things, beyond your numbers. It doesn't make you a fanatic or a fringe member -- it could just mean that you are passionate about the topic. The average viewer might have a slight preference for RR, vis-à-vis America's Funniest Home Videos, and if RR got canned, it'd be no biggie to them -- but it would be a biggie to people passionate about food.

And again, it's a question of what the FN finds most important -- attracting people who are passionate and informed about food -- or just stealing the unwashed masses away from other channels.

I think it's a good thing to show that you're passionate about something, and that you'd like a slightly higher-brow kinda show.

[Michael Ruhlman]

I grind my teeth a lot when I see Rachael on TV. I feel like she's talking to me as if I were a not-very-bright four-year-old, and I resent it. But part of my resentment is that i feel she's speaking directly to me--which is the source of her power on tv.

I spent a couple weeks watching her show in production for my new book and came away with a genuine respect for the quality of her work, how hard it is to do this stuff, and what a pro she is.

All this stuff is evolving. We need smarter shows along with shows for the masses like Rachael's. Robb's point is a good one--Julia's early shows were smart and entertaining and educational and I think eventually we'll have one or two shows that find that combination again, in the same way maybe that 60 minutes, a news show, created a new form and became a mega hit. I hope, anyway.

[Chris Amirault]

Michael, that's very interesting. Can you peel back the tv screen and tell us a bit about what you saw in production for that show that generated your respect? I'd love to know.

I'll also point out that this is one of those situations in which someone who's been on the other side -- of the camera here, but I think this applies broadly to eGullet's on-going discussions between diners and food professionals -- can help us understand the complexities of something that, as non-professionals, many of us never see.

[etalanian]

I grind my teeth a lot when I see Rachael on TV.  I feel like she's talking to me as if I were a not-very-bright four-year-old, and I resent it.  But part of my resentment is that i feel she's speaking directly to me--which is the source of her power on tv.

I spent a couple weeks watching her show in production for my new book and came away with a genuine respect for the quality of her work, how hard it is to do this stuff, and what a pro she is.

All this stuff is evolving.  We need smarter shows along with shows for the masses like Rachael's.  Robb's point is a good one--Julia's early shows were smart and entertaining and educational and I think eventually we'll have one or two shows that find that combination again, in the same way maybe that 60 minutes, a news show, created a new form and became a mega hit. I hope, anyway.

←

Hi, Michael,

It is indeed hard to do what she (or any of them) does. I respect her for being such a talented business woman and marketing guru. While I don't watch her show there are probably millions who do. More power to her. She knows exactly who her market is and how to massage them.

We DO have smarter shows, though. They're on public television. I have a sinking feeling shows like that won't make it onto FN, though, even as it evolves. It's like Bourdain's stuff - they won't show it during the day because they're afraid of losing ratings. FN seems to be devolving, not evolving. Too bad for us.

When I worked with her she held a luncheon for local journalists, and she was very upfront about not being a chef. She wants her public to know she's just like them. No pretense, which is very good marketing sense.

[bTW, liked your PBS chef show. Hope it gets expanded to an hour for next season. But that's the other thread, isn't it?]

Eileen

[phaelon56]

I didn't get the impression that Slate was "casting its lot with the anti-foodie" crowd but the article was a well reasoned defense of Ray based on what her merits as an info-tainer are. It's easy enough to bash her but she does provide a useful function in the TV food entertainment market. Plus she's so damn cute and perky

Nope, but people who cook as therapy are reviled by her.

Where does this observation come from? I've seen her show perhaps a dozen times in the past several years (never all the way through but at least half of each episode if not more). I've never gottent he impression that she disses those whjo love to cook for the joy of it, thee relaxation, therapy or art from but her focus is on showing non-foodies how to get acceptable and reasonably tasty meals on the tabel without consuming loads of time. Now that I'm working 65 - 70 hours per week (not including projects around the house that suck up an extra 20 hours per week) I coudl use a few 30 minute meal lessons.

Plus she's so cute and perky.

[PattyO]

I don't really have a problem with Rachel, apart from her delivery, and I can certainly relate to getting a meal on the table in a short period of time, especially during the week.

I haven't really watched her show all the way through, but I do notice that she uses ample fresh ingredients and seems to know how to put them together. As someone noted upthread, she doesn't present herself as a chef.

That said, I guess there are people who can benefit from watching a show like hers and apparently do.

All I ask is that someone who is teaching about cooking respect the food and the process of cooking.

That is something Sandra Lee knows nothing about.

[Andrew Fenton]

Okay, I've never watched a Rachael Ray show before. But all this fussin' and fightin' got me interested, so last night, when I noticed her program (I guess the $40/day show) on, I watched the last 20 minutes or so. It was a decent show, about food at ballparks, and I thought she did a good job of introducing some of the local favorites at the places she visited (pulled pork at Durham, boiled peanuts and she-crab soup in Charleston.) I don't think I'd watch it again, but I don't see why anybody would get worked up about it: pretty standard travel-show fare.

Plus, she is kind of hot. Just sayin', is all.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Andrew Fenton (log)

[Rebel Rose]

Rachel is cute, and her recipes are geared for the kitchen phobic, so the show has its place and reasons. My significanto thinks she's a doll, and he loves to watch her show just because she gives him a lift at the end of the day. Emotionally. That is. He was quite offended by the Maxim pictures.

I can take half-an-hour, but since my day is very different from SO's, I prefer quieter shows. He's been working in the vineyard or cellar by himself all day. By evening, I've had quite enough of loud, laughing people.

So I admit it. I'm jealous. We do all kinds of FoodTV impersonations in the kitchen, but when I use cute phrases, giggle, and drop things, SO just says, "Are you drinking already?"

[dougery]

Rachel ray is good for the food industry and foodies. It seems that every food related bulletin board has articles on Rachel (check out Knifeforums.com, PG13 though!).

Sure she's a capitalist foodie celebrity, but food is a big business and this is America...

Like it or not, she get's people talking about food! Now that aint that bad is it?

(I don't agree with her latest choice of knives though... FURI!?... Give me a break )

[PattyO]

Perhaps I didn't state my thoughts clearly enough.

I don't have a problem with Rachel Ray. I appreciate the concept of her show and can understand that many people benefit from her approach.

I have watched enough to know that she uses a lot of fresh ingredients and seems to know how to put a meal together.

Is her show something I think will add to my personal abilities as far as cooking goes? No, but there are a lot of people out there that she is helping.

My problem is with the comparisons between Rachel Ray and Sandra Lee. In my estimation, Rachel Ray fills a valid niche and does it well. Whatever gets people into the kitchen and learning to cook is a wonderful thing and I think Ms. Ray is a good place to start.

What I was trying to say in my post is that Sandra Lee is a slap in the face to anyone who respects cooking and food. I have watched her show many times just to see the trainwreck of ingredients (seasoning packets, canned fruit salad as a chutney, dredging steak in ranch dressing mix, I could go on and on...), never mind her lack of basic techniques.

I just don't how anyone can even compare these two people as far as teaching cooking is concerned. I think Rachel does a valuable service, and Sandra does a disservice.

That's all I'm sayin'.