DeSanctis 1

Grace DeSanctis
Dr. McLaughlin
Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric
24 November 2015
The Rhetoric of Cooking Shows
People feel guilty about foodbut they dont feel guilty about watching television. So
in some ways people can get access to food and comfort on television (Hesser). The Food
Network taps into the connections between food, pleasure, and comfort, encouraging guilt-free
food narratives (Littlejohn 67). Broadcasted to almost 100,000,000 households in the United
States alone, and spanning over 60 countries internationally, the Food Network has expanded to
not only monopolize the food channel industry, but has also been identified as a top television
powerhouse (Food Network Fact Sheet). It has varied its programming over the years from
strictly demonstrative cooking shows, such as Barefoot Contessa and 30-Minute Meals to include
competition and general food shows such as Throwdown with Bobby Flay and Unwrapped. Like
all television programs, the goal in mind for these Food Network shows is to persuade the
audience to turn on the channel and continue watching. Yet, due to the drastic differences
between genres of cooking programs on the Food Network, it is not surprising that within these
different genres there exists different techniques used to persuade audience members into
watching. Therefore, Throwdown with Bobby Flay and Barefoot Contessa demonstrate different
rhetorical elements due to their innate differences in genre in order to accomplish the same
ultimate goal of capturing the interest of the audience.
In order to properly look at the rhetorical elements of two types of shows on the Food
Network, it would be best to discern important background information in relation to food

DeSanctis 2
television and the stars associated with it. Bobby Flay, host of Throwdown with Bobby Flay,
began his culinary career rather inauspiciously, working as a busboy in one of his fathers
restaurants. He went on to train at the French Culinary Institute in Manhattan. He worked at
several top-tier restaurants in New York until he opened the Mesa Grill in 1991. Since then, Flay
has authored several popular cookbooks and opened two more restaurants (Mitchell 526). The
basis of Throwdown with Bobby Flay is Flay surprising chefs and challenging them to create
their signature dish. A panel of blind taste testers determine whose cuisine reigns supreme.
Nothing but pride is at stake. Conversely, Ina Garten, television personality of Barefoot
Contessa, took a different culinary path, dipping her toes in the food industry through a spur-ofthe-moment purchase of a specialty foods store, which eventually grew to a 3,000 square foot
food emporium. Ina has produced several award winning cookbooks since the store and even has
her own specialty line of pantry products. Currently, Ina divulges all her tips and tricks to
incredibly elegant and easy cooking and entertaining on Barefoot Contessa (Littlejohn 68).
While many might refer back to the days of Julia Child teaching stay-at-home wives and
mothers step-by-step how to prepare meals to serve to their working husbands, food television
has come a long way, splitting into many sub-categories, or genres, of shows. Most reality
cooking TV shows take the form of a competition or contest where participants are given
cooking tasks. The show will then eliminate those that are subpar in comparison to other chefs.
People find themselves rooting for a contestant and inevitably, also find themselves returning for
more (Lynch). Throwdown with Bobby Flay falls within this genre. On the other hand, the
purpose of cooking-at-home shows is to teach viewers how to cook basic dishes. These kinds of
cooking TV shows cater to stay-at-home moms and busy people who still prefer home-cooked
meals despite their busy schedules. Often, the host chef will teach the viewer how to whip up

DeSanctis 3
delicious meals within minutes. The network banks on the personality of the host chef to attract
viewers and drive ratings. This genre corresponds to Ina Gartens show, Barefoot Contessa.
Not surprisingly, the rhetoric for cooking shows is different depending on the genre under
analysis. According to James Herrick, acclaimed writer of The History and Theory of Rhetoric,
the art of rhetoric can be defined as the systematic study and intentional practice of effective
symbolic expression. Effectiveness is measured by the ability of rhetoric to achieve its purpose,
whether that be persuasion, clarity, beauty, or mutual understanding. Food narratives are the
rhetorical device that persuades viewers to take away their specific messages. An example of
such narratives are when TV hosts talk about a personal story they have that relates back to the
dish they are cooking. Food narratives are effective techniques implemented to deliver messages
and persuade viewers without their awareness. This ideological persuasion occurs because food
narratives are invisibly embedded into American culture. Different from the direct manipulation
of food narratives to persuade people in the contexts of fast food and politics, the food narratives
that circulate on television have a more elusive origin. Celebrity chefs, production companies,
merchandisers, and television networks, all benefit from the use of food narratives to persuade
audiences to consume either airtime or product. Regardless of who benefits, cooking shows
become the site of identification and persuasion that influences the behavior of viewers. Food
narratives, then, work to persuade viewers by sending whatever messages producers,
programmers, or hosts want to attach to them. Because food feels so familiar and safe, the world
of food does not feel like a typical site of rhetorical persuasion. Though viewers do understand
that television is a world of commercialism, food, because of Americans non-reflectivity, is not
as easily recognized as a tool of manipulation. Cooking shows, as a clear intersection of food and

DeSanctis 4
culture, are an ideal forum for examining how food narratives work as a rhetorical device
(Littlejohn 66).
Once we can recognize food television as a rhetorical device, its properties can be easily
identified. Yet, the properties differ from one genre of show to another as the overall motives are
different for each. The first genre that will examined is competition-based food shows, like
Throwdown with Bobby Flay. This type of show capitalizes on the inclination of humans to
compete. Because competitive interaction is a natural part of life, and humans, like (at least) all
other mammals, instinctively engage in competitive play as a vital form of, and incentive to,
learning and socialization, shows like Throwdown are directed to appeal to the human motives
based on competition (Schandorf 2). As humans, we are inclined to not only compete with
others, but watch others compete among themselves, as we see on shows like Throwdown with
Bobby Flay. Competition shows like this capitalize on this natural inclination. Throwdown with
Bobby Flay capitalizes on human nature to compete as the discourse of the show is planned in
order to appeal to the motives of the audience. The nature of the show persuades viewers to pick
a side. These are all classic examples of Herricks definition of rhetoric.
An additional rhetorical device in Throwdown with Bobby Flay is the use of ethos. Ethos
can be defined as proof or evidence of character, or credibility (UWP). Bobby Flay, acclaimed
New York City chef, immediately establishes a great amount of credibility and viewers get the
sense that any chef going up against Flay must also be extremely skilled. This ethos continues
throughout the show when both dishes are judged and a winner is declared, especially when that
winner is Flays opponent. Audience members can then give the competitor ethos if they are
victorious against a chef that already carries a large amount of ethos.

DeSanctis 5
The main point of contrast in rhetoric between competition shows like Throwdown with
Bobby Flay and Barefoot Contessa is that rather than focusing on the ethos of Bobby Flay,
Barefoot Contessa focuses on the pathos of Ina Garten. As defined by the University Writing
Program, pathos is proofs of emotion that appeal to the values of the audience. Filmed at her
home in East Hampton, New York, Ina invites the viewers into her kitchen, an intimate and
personal space. Appearing to be a mother-like figure, Garten appeals to the audiences overall
desire for comfort. Furthermore, seeking to connect with others, she sets aside an Ask Ina
section where she gives tips to viewers e-mailed or questions while demonstrating her
instructions. This allows for audience members to feel a more personal connection between
themselves and the celebrity chef host. An example of an Ask Ina segment is as follows:
Ina Garten: BC (Barefoot Contessa) Burger Joint
Ina: This email is from Kathe Enlow.
Kathe: (email; Ina narrates) Hi Ina, I recently cooked the best roast chicken that you
prepare for Jeffrey
(Ina smiles and comments: I do).And it turned out great but my fennel, onions, etc.
burned. I used a good quality roasting pan. Any suggestions?
Ina: Kathe, thats a great question. Im so glad you asked me that. A few people have
asked me. It was in my first book and I didnt know to write have a roasting pan thats
just big enough to hold the chicken and the vegetables comfortably. If its too big, the
vegetables do burn. And Im really sorry. So from now on, youll have great chicken and
youll also have great vegetables.
Although the questions are virtual and asynchronous, Ina creates a dialogue with the viewer as
she reads aloud the e-mail. Simulating a conversation, she takes a turn with interruptions (I do

DeSanctis 6
agreeing in on the viewers praise of her roast chicken she makes for her husband), and
affirmations to the viewer by thanking her for the question (Im so glad you asked me that), for
the quality of her question (Kathe, thats a great question), and by using her name (Kathe).
Inas active listenership signals uptake, understanding, and agreement, letting the main speaker
Kathe hold the floor until she has finished describing her problem about the burning vegetables
(Goffman). Ina then takes her turn by connecting the distinct unit of the conversation to a larger
dialogue by mentioning preceding inquiries from viewers. Although the viewer is not physically
present, the speaker senses her presence and carries out the expectations of a conversation. Ina
reveals how the inquiry of the viewer is shared by other viewers (e.g. A few people have asked
me), which creates a sense of community in the curiosity and pleasure in cooking. Sharing her
recipes, Ina creates a cultural narrative that allows her to reflect on her experiences as well as
extend beyond her own kitchen and into the community (Inquiry 317). Describing her burnt
dish experiences, Ina shares in her inquiry and what she discovered from it (e.g. have a pan that
just fits the ingredients). Lastly, she looks directly at the camera to engage the home audience,
creating a double audience structure with two kinds of audience types in cooking shows. While
Ina appears to be oriented toward the internal or co-present audience (Kathe), she is also
answering the question to benefit the external audience or viewers at home (Storytelling). All of
these aspects create a rhetorical environment heavily reliant on the pathos of the audience.
Similarly to Throwdown with Bobby Flay, Barefoot Contessa uses several of Herricks
designated characteristics of rhetoric. The rhetoric of Barefoot Contessa is planned, keeping in
mind the motives of the audience. The motives, however, for those who watch Barefoot
Contessa are different from those who watch Throwdown with Bobby Flay. While viewers who
turn on the television to watch Throwdown with Bobby Flay are expecting a suspenseful form of

DeSanctis 7
entertainment, those who tune into Barefoot Contessa are also expecting cooking instruction and
education in addition to entertainment. Another facet of Herricks definition of rhetoric is the
rhetor responding to a situation. Garten is responding to a situation each time she answers one of
these viewer-produced question. Lastly, Ina encourages, or persuades, viewers to cook the dishes
and try out the techniques she demonstrates through phrases such as this is the best and simplest
roast chicken you will ever make. This is a technique done by all television chefs, almost all of
which have additional products like cookbooks and kitchenware available for purchase. Chefs
like Garten want to persuade viewers to actually make her dishes because, if the result of the
prepared dish is positive in the eyes of the viewers, they are more likely to buy specific products
made by Ina herself.
No longer are there simply instructional television cooking shows, but rather a great
variety of shows, all becoming more and more specialized into genres. There are both similarities
and differences of the rhetoric used in such genres, like competition cooking TV shows and
cook-at-home TV shows. By using Throwdown with Bobby Flay as an example of a competition
cooking show, it is apparent that the main tactic used is the use of ethos, in addition to other
characteristics of Herricks definition of rhetoric, such as being planned (requires forethought to
address the audience in the desired manner), adapted to an audience, shaped by human motives, a
response to a situation, and persuasion seeking. On the other hand, Barefoot Contessa
exemplifies the cook-at-home genre, and relies heavily on the pathos of an audience. Yet, there
are also instances of Herricks definition of rhetoric within the show as well. These apparent
differences in rhetoric correspond to the purpose of each show. Whether viewers enjoy the thrill
of competition or the comfort of the hosts kitchen, the Food Network is bound to have a genre
of show that will get them hooked.

DeSanctis 8
Works Cited
Collins, Kathleen. Watching What We Eat : The Evolution of Television Cooking Shows. New
York: Continuum, 2009. Print.
Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. Print.
Littlejohn, Sara Jane. The Rhetoric of Food Narratives: Ideology and Influence in American
Culture. Diss. The U of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2008. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web.
Lynch, Tess. "The American Cooking Show Boom: Why We Watch." Grantland. N.p., 16 Dec.
2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.
Hesser, Amanda. "Under the Toque; 'Here's Emeril!' Where's The Chef?" The New York Times.
The New York Times, 03 Nov. 1998. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.
Matwick, Kelsi, and Matwick, Keri. Inquiry in Television Cooking Shows.Discourse &
Communication 9.3: 313-30. Web.
Matwick, Keri, and Matwick, Kelsi. Storytelling and Synthetic Personalization in Television
Cooking Shows. Journal of Pragmatics 71 (2014): 151-59. Web.
Mitchell, Christine M. "The Journal of Popular Culture Volume 43, Issue 3, 25 May 2010." The
Rhetoric of Celebrity Cookbooks. N.p., 25 May 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
What We Teach: The Ethical, Rhetorical, and Practical." University Writing Program University of Notre Dame. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.