An alternative Food TV Network?

[GordonCooks]

Remember "Dining Around" with Alan Richman and Nina Griscomb - the wine asides with Kevin Zraly

That was my fave

[Basildog]

Steve Klc?  What's wrong with me and Tommy?

Thats a whole new thread boys !

[Fat Guy]

Gordon: I thought the Dining Around show was just awful, as was much of the early Food TV programming despite its seriousness relative to what we have now. What in the world did you like about it?

[kpurvis]

When I saw the name of this thread, I was expecting a discussion on the REAL food channel -- PBS. Remember, public TV was what gave us Julia to start with. I was thinking of that this week when I saw the press release on the new Burt Wolf show, "What We Eat." It sounds promising.

Of course, in a perfect world, we'd have PBS food shows for seriousness, and a 24-hour food porn channel for the other 23 hours in the day. It would have lots of close shots of Nigella licking food off her fingers and restaurant reviewers committing unnatural acts with seared tuna. They'd have black bars over their faces instead of their genitals . . . No, wait -- I just pictured that with some critics I know. Oh god, now how do I get that image out of my head?

[GordonCooks]

Gordon: I thought the Dining Around show was just awful, as was much of the early Food TV programming despite its seriousness relative to what we have now. What in the world did you like about it?

I know the production value was in the dumper, but it really was the first restaurant type show I was able to see on TV. I really don't recall any other shows (at least on the stations I watched) that offered similar content. Seeing Alan and Kevin in the segments discussing viticulture and food pairing was very novel at the time. It was better than nothing I guess

[Ron Johnson]

Not so much that I am wedded to Rosengarten - even in  the metaphorical sense - but I liked to see a show that explained foodstuffs in some detail, soberly and accurately, and without the lunatic camerawork (Alton Brown).

Watch 2 episodes of the Naked Chef back to back, and after you come out of your grand mal seizure, the camera work on Good Eats will seem like PBS.

[hollywood]

I see a McLaughin Group style show with Plotnicki sitting in John's chair and panel members Tommy, Cabrales and Nina with a fourth chair rotating Fat Guy, Simon, Jinmyo, Wilfrid and Whiting in and out. If Plotnicki doesn't interrupt people, he'll get it with practice, I'm sure.

Me? I'm in the audience with a supply of ripe tomatoes.

[Wilfrid]

Not so much that I am wedded to Rosengarten - even in  the metaphorical sense - but I liked to see a show that explained foodstuffs in some detail, soberly and accurately, and without the lunatic camerawork (Alton Brown).

Watch 2 episodes of the Naked Chef back to back, and after you come out of your grand mal seizure, the camera work on Good Eats will seem like PBS.

Oh yes, there are degrees of annoyingness. I didn't like the editing on A Cook's tour either - why send Tony Bourdain thousands of miles to look at something if it's not worth putting on the screen for more than half a second?

[Deacon]

I see a McLaughlin Group style show with Plotnicki sitting in John's chair and panel members Tommy, Cabrales and Nina with a fourth chair rotating Fat Guy, Simon, Jinmyo, Wilfrid and Whiting in and out.

"Issue Two! What did you have for dinner? Tommy!"

"Um, roast beef and--"

"Cabrales!"

"Ah, well, we had to cancel at the last minute, because--"

"Nina!"

*flustered* "Um, um, you mean last evening? Ah--"

"John Whiting!"

"Well, Steve, I was lucky enough to get in at Chez Panisse, and--"

"Wrong! You all had free-range chicken! Next issue! . . ."

[mixmaster b]

How about the Great Chefs series? I think these are hilarious--they always seem a bit dated, and the comentator's high brow Virginia accent is just bizarre. (The best was a sequence featuring sperm from some sort of fish--I still have no idea what it really was ) But it is great to see actual chefs in their own kitchens using professional techniques, complex stocks and sauces, and fancy mise-en-place(s). Much more interesting that the "cooking is so easy and fun" genre of even the best FTV offerings.

I get Julia on PBS, and also have seen some excellent chefs doing interesting stuff on Martha (only watch if there is a good guest!)

I also have a Tivo, which is key for sorting the wheat from the chaff. Never again will I have to endure an episode of Naked Chef or a "BAM" while trying to learn something about cooking!

[dave88]

How about the Great Chefs series?  I think these are hilarious--they always seem a bit dated, and the comentator's high brow Virginia accent is just bizarre. (The best was a sequence featuring sperm from some sort of fish--I still have no idea what it really was )  But it is great to see actual chefs in their own kitchens using professional techniques, complex stocks and sauces, and fancy mise-en-place(s).  Much more interesting that the "cooking is so easy and fun" genre of even the best FTV offerings.

I get Julia on PBS, and also have seen some excellent chefs doing interesting stuff on Martha (only watch if there is a good guest!)

I also have a Tivo, which is key for sorting the wheat from the chaff.  Never again will I have to endure an episode of Naked Chef or a "BAM" while trying to learn something about cooking!

and the comentator's high brow Virginia accent is just bizarre.

Actually, she's from New Orleans. Her name is Mary Lou Conroy. She did a show on TLC years ago with some big guy who made pizzas... the sperm was from a carp.

Julia and PBS is great with cooking shows. Remember "Dinner at Julia's"? That was the show that got me hooked on cooking shows! You'll learn more with the "Bam" man and Oliver than "Unwrapped" and "Food Finds" ,etc.... but you knew that.

The show with Nina and Alan was a great laugh! Hey, it was better than "Best of" They actually gave critical info on the restaurant. And at least Nina knew the word "cooking" was pronounced "cooking" and not "cook-een" or going "go-een" or topping "top-een" or eating "eat-een" etc.... you get the idea.

[Aurora]

Julia and PBS is great with cooking shows.  Remember "Dinner at Julia's"?  That was the show that got me hooked on cooking shows!   You'll learn more with the "Bam" man and Oliver than "Unwrapped" and "Food Finds" ,etc.... but you knew that.

For my money, the most interesting alternative to The Food Network was there before anyone else, and it continues to thrive. PBS has broadcast a steady stream of quality, serious cooking shows since there was such a thing as cooking shows (yet another nod to Julia Child).

PBS enforces the most rigorous production and content standards in the business. For food people, the result is a lineup of cooking shows that are informative--dare I say educational--and even fun. PBS doesn't dummy down with sickly trendiness or the employment of en vogue camerawork. There's nothing that amounts to the look of a Mitsubishi ad with food, nor are there cute tag lines, unless some find "Bon appetit!" (Child), or "Happy cooking!" (Pepin) annoying. PBS delivers a straight-forward, consistent approach to cooking; clear instruction and explanation in technique and simple camera moves that actually hold their attention on, get this, THE FOOD! I don't deny that some may find PBS a tad dry and boring, but I love it. The best part is that it's free (yes, I'm a member), and I always learn something. I'm never left feeling like I just took a ride on the Cyclone.

In praising the virtues of PBS, it's important to note that the financial strength of any PBS station is the guiding hand determining the depth and variety of its programming. Stronger markets can afford to purchase and produce better shows. Boston, New York, Chicago and San Francisco head the list. As a resident of Chicago, this does serve to guide my opinion, if not color it completely.

To be fair, those of us who live in markets where the local PBS station has little to offer (mainly due to cost) may still be searching for that oasis in the FN desert. I recognize that what PBS offers in Chicago is not the case for every PBS station. Chicago's public television station (big nod to WTTW!) is one of the best. I gain more from the weekly Saturday cluster of cooking shows than I do from watching FN on a daily basis. I do like some programs better than others, but I still gain something from my lessor favorites. My likes and dislikes are based more upon the personal style of each TV chef. Even with my dislikes, I cannot argue with the production quality or the content.

I do tune in to FN to watch Mario Batali, Anthony Bourdain, Gale Gand, and yes, Alton Brown. Iron Chef is wonderful comic relief. Between those things is an endless string of reminders of why I don't really watch it as much as I could. I guess I'm waiting for some great shift or change in its direction that will also help me change my opinion. Perhaps I tune in to make sure that I'm still not judging the network unfairly.

It has been discussed in other threads, but over time, the FN has become less and less for the serious cook or true food lover. What began with good intentions appears to be succumbing to the whims of marketing and revenue. In this new era of the celebrity chef, FN functions more like E!, and in that way it must appeal to it's broadest demographic. What that translates into is a lowest common denominator of sorts. Not that there aren't good things to be found, but the good things don't number as high as the questionable stuff. In an effort to reach new viewers, serious food people, a relatively small percentage of FN's total market, are cut out of the mix. Simply put, reaching out to people like us would certainly improve the quality of the FN, but sadly, it won't keep it alive.

In this past week's "Good Eating" section of the Chicago Tribune, food and wine columnist, William Rice conducted an interview with Julia Child in honor of the celebration of her 90th birthday. He asked for her thoughts on cooking on television, and her response did little in support of FN. In case you would like to read the interview, I have included the link.

Chicago Tribune Interview with Julia Child

The Food Network isn't a total loss. Absorb what works; reject what doesn't. Write to FN and register your displeasure. Better still, turn it off. It could be much better, but it still beats Mr. Food.

[dave88]

PBS enforces the most rigorous production and content standards in the business...  I guess I'm waiting for some great shift or change in its direction that will also help me change my opinion.

What do you mean, "in the business." I have been trying to figure out Foodtv's philosophy for months now. They are "the business," though I still have no idea of their philosophy. Some people think they're trying to gain new viewers. I don't see how they can accomplish that by straying from the original formula which built a good-sized audience. I think the Emeril sit-com gave them delusions of a network-tv style audience. They will never get that audience because they are about Food. That's it. All their new shows are combining "survivor" with pot roast 101 using some host with no real food experience resulting in some mediocre attempt at infood-tainment (sorry). People who want to watch thrilling shows with half naked 19 year-olds are not going to watch Gordon Elliot hug some Italian grandmother who just baked a lemon cake. They might watch half-naked Nigella do that, but for different reasons that Foodtv should address. That is the direction Foodtv should be going! She can actually cook, too!

To the post below:

Scripps Broadcasting (HGTV, DIY, etc.) bought Foodtv in 1997. They have been phasing out the shows not produced by themselves since their purchase of the network.

.

[coffeetaster]

I really like watching the food network, and have enjoyed it's programming for many years. Since it inception with computer generated graphics and voice over talking about recipes I feel it has come a long, very long way. However about 2 years ago it went from having serious food shows to more entertainment.

I find that whenever Emeril is on the TV food network, Spongebob Squarepants is on Nickelodeon - coincidence? I think not........

I find myself watching the PBS food shows on Saturday afternoon more often then TV food network.

When will be have a good show about COFFEE??!?!?!?

Cheers!

Coffeetaster

[Aurora]

PBS enforces the most rigorous production and content standards in the business...  I guess I'm waiting for some great shift or change in its direction that will also help me change my opinion.

What do you mean, "in the business." I have been trying to figure out Foodtv's philosophy for months now. They are "the business," though I still have no idea of their philosophy.

The "business", meaning THE TELEVISION INDUSTRY. In that sea, The Food Network is but one boat in a vast ocean. Please forgive any vagueness.

I have had the opportunity to work on several documentaries that were produced through WTTW, here in Chicago. Within the industry, PBS is notorious for its broadcast standards. For a show to be aired on PBS, it must meet rigorus specifications in two categories. One set is content, which is obvious. The other is broadcast quality. Every show that airs on PBS must also meet international broadcast standards and be conversion ready, and that's just the start. This is one of the reasons why PBS programming is so costly and difficult to fund (that and no commercial sponsorship). The broadcast requirements for the other networks is not as stringent.

If FN placed such standards on its programming it would no longer exist. They would price themselves out of existence.

Any network is always trying to gain new viewers, and FN is no different. The original formula did build a good-sized audience, but that original audience isn't good-sized enough for FN to remain competitive over time with other networks currently on cable. All it takes is for a few key cable markets to drop FN from its services. It's clear that targeting the foodie audience wasn't a big moneymaker. If it was, they would still follow that original format today.