Class Warfare: Ruth Reichl vs. Rachel Ray

I have often thought that some of the things I have done have turned out exactly opposite to what I'd hoped for. In 1959 or '60 I revealed in the now defunct Reporter magazine that Spyros Skouras, then CEO of Twentieth Century Fox, had provided Nelson Rockefeller with a camera crew to cover Nelson's campaign for Governor of New York, when he ran against the incumbent, another millionaire, Averill Harriman. In those days, few stations had camera crews to cover election news unless the events were in their town, so when free film arrived showing Rockefeller on the campaign trail they ran it in their news shows. Nelson won the election, and I thought what Skouras did was awful. I hoped others would think so too, but many other political professionals thought it was a great idea, and so Nelson Rockefeller became known as the father of the video news handout.

When I started CNN, I thought we could change the world by showing things just as they were happening and letting people know what was really happening in the world around them. I knew our veteran correspondents, like Bernie Shaw, Dan Schorr, Bill Zimmerman or Mary Alice Williams, would play it straight. CNN has transformed into a showcase of political opinions with brief film clips occasionally interrupting the chatter of the ignorami who then debate which political party will benefit from the film clip that has just been aired. CNN was designed to shed light on the news. Now it generates heat about the news. Borrowing a phrase from Pat Buchanan (whom I hired for the original Crossfire) and/or Bill Safire, CNN has now become another podium for the "nattering nabobs of negativism."

When I started the Food Network, I was sure we would do no harm. How could programs showing world class chefs concocting wonderful meals hurt anybody? How could learning about healthy eating or how to lose weight or where the best restaurants were, how could that hurt anybody? We hired Julia Child and bought all her old shows from PBS. We showed Jacques Pepin's PBS shows and did a documentary about him. Marion Cunningham, the west coast disciple of James Beard, and Barbara Kafka, his east coast disciple, both did shows for us. We found bold new chefs, like Emeril (who made it possible for American men to cook with no suspicions about sexual orientation), Mario Batalia and Bobby Flay, and turned them into TV stars and nationally recognized brand names. Ruth Reichl (wearing a wig to disguise herself from the New York restaurateurs whose restaurants she critiqued for The Times) did a week's cooking with Ms. Cunningham.

But television is a funny business: When you ask most people what's the product of television, the answer you get is "its programs." But television doesn't sell its programs, it sells its audience. Television gets its money from advertisers who pay x-dollars for every thousand viewers of certain demographic characteristics that the program delivers. In other words, the "mass audience" is much more important than the "class audience." So, the original Food Network, which was "classier" than the current network, delivered a .3 rating when I was there. My successors have doubled that rating, and they have done it by making stars out of people like Rachel Ray. Julia Child's first question to chefs was, "And where did you train, dear?" Nobody gives a damn where Rachel Ray trained. She delivers a mass audience.

Condé Nast shut down Gourmet last week. It's keeping Bon Appétit up and running. Bon Appétit has about 350,000 more subscribers than Gourmet, and it costs far less to produce. It's basically a recipe magazine, while Gourmet, under Ruth Reichl's editorship, sent writers throughout the United States around the world to find the very best of the best. She used the best photographers, the best stylists, and the best editors, and she produced one of the world's best upscale magazines. But Condé Nast, which also sells its advertising based on the size and demographics of its subscribers, decided to go with mass instead of class, and closed it down.

I guess it was inevitable, but I'm still feeling guilty. I knew there was only so much food advertising money, and it was my job to make sure that the Food Network got a large chunk of it. The Food Network is now extremely profitable, and Gourmet was not. But who (besides Ted Turner) would've thought that the Food Network would've helped put Gourmet out of business? Who would've thought that national advertising on CNN would hurt The New York Times? But television has done that, and in the process it has helped dumb down the American public. When institutions like The New York Times and Gourmet, that prided themselves on the intelligence of their product are threatened or destroyed by TV networks whose only consideration is how many viewers or subscribers they have, we are all in trouble because when it comes to numbers, mass always beats class. So, when it comes to class warfare, Gourmet is the loser, and I worry about the future of The New York Times.

The only good thing that's come out of this is last week's ratings, which show that the Food Network has once again gotten more viewers in all the demographics than FoxNews, which by my methodology proves that in America eaters outnumber haters, at least among people under 55.

 

Comments

[COPerez]

Food Network gets the "eyes" because real people want to learn how to cook real food in real kitchens in real houses in the real world.

Rich people already know where all the best restaurants are: they have people for that.

Rich people already eat all the best foods and drink the best wines: they have people for that.

Rich people already have all the best kitchen equipment and appliances (although do they really use them?): they have people for that.

For the rest of us - those without "people" - Food Network teaches us about foods and techniques we might not otherwise learn about; it shows us places and restaurants we might not get to see; and - yes imagine that from television - it entertains us. Those of us in the middle class know all about class warfare: and we're losing.

[GraceNotes]

I used to enjoy watching Food Network, then I was diagnosed with diabetes, and realized there were almost no programs which would help me learn to cook in a completely different way. Then I realized that very few shows on Food Network are about cooking anyway. They are food porn, masquerading as real cooking shows. I have gone back to my PBS affiliate, where at least I can learn something, if i occasionally want to watch a cooking show. But given my health issues, i don't watch too many of those!

[wagadog]

The article I read just before this was about how 1 in 5 students at a Brooklyn school are homeless.

Maybe people watch The Food Channel because they're ... hungry?

[PadrePio]

If Gourmet Magazine was about finding the best of the best why didn't the people who can afford the best of the best keep it alive? No one I knew who read Gourmet could afford what the magazine covered. It is obvious that Gourmet was not reaching the people who could pay to keep it afloat (it is apparent that they already know where the best of the best is) so it sank. So what?

[esgabel]

Fine Living Network is going foodie...i­f that is the case, it is the perfect place for the type of outline Ruth followed in the magazine--Food and Travel, Food and Politics, Food and Sustainability, Chefs, their restautrants and their recipes, --I would add a healthy dose of seasonal cooking and shopping, gardening, and the basics of cooking, butchering, herbs, etc...ther­e's room and a need for 2 Food Networks. I'm not crazy about Rachel's voice. she is sooooooo annoying but Rachel and Sandra demystify cooking for many people--and serve a purpose--we can't afford to be snobs... I believe once you are willing to cook you will branch out and experiment­...and I know it is nuts, but Brian Boitano's show is entertaining ...shades of Rocky and Bullwinkle!

[DaveinNorthridge]

I'm not sure you get what happened, Reese. I like Food Network, especially Giada and Ina, and I'm really happy with Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives, but who I REALLY tuned in for was Sarah Moulton, Ruth Reichl's predecessor. When she began to disappear from the network, and when Mario Batali was relegated from a good kitchen show to Iron Chef (and don't copy a Japanese show unless you're going to do it better, which you haven't), I knew that you were moving from chefs to spectacle. Oh, there are chefs on, but why let a Michelin-starred chef actually host a cooking show when you can show him choking down the hot chile dish at Old Mandarin Islamic -- just give Brian Boitano his time slot.

Don't blame the advertisers for this either. I worked in the business, on food products, as a media planner, and I would have MUCH rather placed my products in a serious cooking show than in the strip programming the Food Network runs between 8 and 10 PM. How is Unwrapped defensible as anything? It's not always the cpm, and anyone who can't sell a client on a great environment for his/her product that might be less efficient than Emeril or Alton doesn't deserve to work in the business.

[Nommo]

The American public hardly needed television to dumb it down. That implies that some previous intelligence and/or awareness was present. Hardly.

[thnk4selfagain]

Food Network is a mere shell of what it once was. Once, one could tune in and *learn* something about the necessary skill of preparing one's own food. Julia Child emphasized to America that technique exponentially expands recipe options. Now Food Network now demonstrates how food porn (Guy Fieri : Dude, that's the best monster burrito I've ever tasted!) can expand our waistlines.

CNN has improved lately, but still it is in thrall to the he said/ he said mode of journalism.

[David Fruits]

Only Good Eats Reruns are worth watching, imho. Give Alton Brown some leash and let him save it.

[BLBass]

It's a little bit apples-to-oranges. Food Network is more analogous to Conde Nast in its entirety. Gourmet is more like a show, maybe a full hour on Saturday mornings where I used to enjoy Pepin/Child, devoted to finding and creating the best of the best. (Gourmet did have a show for a while, and despite being pretentious it did some interesting things blurring the lines between audience and creator.) Sure, it would still deliver "class" rather than "mass" ratings, but the network builds its audience by catering to both groups. Conde Nast calculated that they gained less marketing equity from that trend than from building their mass brands -- analogous to star-power for the Rachel Rays of the Food Network. (Or that spawn of evil, Sandra Lee; yes I like Tony Bourdain, no I didn't know we agreed on her until after forming my opinion.) Hopefully Food Network will resist allowing that pattern to take over its entire lineup, or maybe even bring Gourmet fully into the TV world as a show rather than some lifestyle brand. Nice and skilled as Paula Deen may be, for example, Food Network needs something a little less mayo-basted to balance things out.

[punkingale]

Due to the hard life Sandra Lee had gowing up, (I know. Didn't we all?) she deserves everything she has worked for her whole life. I read Anthony Bourdain's book and I'd say he's a tad bit jealous of the Food Network stars.

[lanrameau]

It's not a matter of class, it's a matter of quality. Rachel Ray couldn't get hired at a McDonalds. She can't cook. Witness: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/rachael-ray/mini-cheeseburger-salad-with-yellow-mustard-vinaigrette-recipe/index.html

Yikes