My wife is a huge fan of the Food Network series Chopped, and I've watched my share, or more, of the episodes. I like the show also. If you haven't seen it, it features a host (food and style writer Ted Allen from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), three "celebrity food experts" as judges, and four contestants, usually restauranteurs of some sort, competing in a three-round "cookoff" where one judge is "chopped" after each round. The winner goes home with a pocketful of money and serious bragging rights.
There's a sister show of sorts, Chopped Canada. It's not so good.
All this talk of food shows is well and good, and may send you scrambling for the fridge, but there's another purpose to my writing this.
I think that MSNBC's Phil Griffin ought to watch some episodes of both shows, and take notes. He might save MSNBC from bottom-feeder status and media irrelevance by doing so. Follow me over the orange spaghetti cluster for more.
I watched a few of the first-season episodes of Chopped, and I thought the show would bomb. The biggest problem that I saw was Ted Allen. He was stiff as a board, excessively formal, and not particularly engaged with either the judges or the competitors. That changed fairly quickly, whether by design or just by Allen finding his comfort zone. He stepped up the energy level and, while not losing entirely the stiffness and formality, began engaging with both the judges and the competitors, even bantering a bit with the judges while the competitors scramble to complete their dishes in the kitchen. His trademark is his announcement that someone has lost: "Chef Max (sigh), you've been chopped. (bigger sigh) Judges?" It's doubtful he's regretful or sad in any real sense that a competitor has lost; that's the nature of the show, and three of them lose every episode. But it comes across sincerely enough no matter how many times he does it, and it shows the competitor, and more importantly the viewers, that Allen recognizes and empathizes with the disappointment of the chopped chef. Allen's remaining stiffness and formality is actually part of his charm now, and it works for him. He's found his groove.
Just as importantly, the rotating panel of judges are quite personable and "watchable." All of the "regulars" are quite personable and watchable, and bring their own strong personalities to the judges' table, whether it's Amanda Freitag's playfulness, Alex Guarnaschelli's intensity, Scott Conant's affable irascibility, or Marcus Samuelsson's urbane good humor. As you see them (and a fairly large stable of others) in different combinations with one another, you become more familiar with them until you're as pleased to see one or the other of your "favorite" judges on any given episode. The interview snippets with the competitors that are interspersed with the cooking and judging elements presented onscreen also increase the viewers' level of involvement and identification with the contestants. After all, in any reality show, you as a viewer want to engage with the participants, cheering on some and rooting for others to fail.
The Food Network has even started streaming an "After Hours" video series, showing Ted and the judges with their hair down. Very engaging for the devout fans.
Is this coming into focus for you, Phil?
Then there's Chopped Canada. Same concept, same format, nearly-identical set even. But where Chopped succeeds, Chopped Canada bombs. Why? Personalities. The host, TV actor Dean McDermott, is known to American viewers who have watched his reality shows with his wife (current? ex?) Tori Spelling. Already he's at a disadvantage with some viewers because he is the Lying Douchebag who Cheated on His Sweet Wife. But that's not why McDermott fails. He fails because he is a crashing bore as a host. Dull, uninspired, monochromatic, he just isn't good TV. The judges have the same problem. The Chopped Canada judges come across as a band of colorless food wonks -- certainly they are knowledgeable, but where Chopped's judges come across as passionate and involved, Chopped Canada's judges come across as sardonic, acerbic and dry.
Pop quiz, Phil. Why does the one succeed and the other fail?
Let me ask it a different way, and in a way that might scorch some tailfeathers. Why does Fox News succeed (with its viewers) and CNN fail? Why is MSNBC about to make the same mistakes that CNN makes?
Chopped provides its viewers with big, bold, increasingly familiar personalities that are engaging and watchable. Chopped Canada does not. Fox News provides its viewers with big, bold personalities that its viewers like. Yes, they are screamingly incompetent, hatefully bigoted people that aren't fit to grace the set of a news show, but for whatever reason, they resonate with the Fox News viewership.
Who resonates with the MSNBC viewership? Rachel Maddow. Melissa Harris-Perry. Why? Big, bold, friendly personalities that viewers find engaging and interesting. Do you watch Rachel and Melissa just to enjoy their company? I do. And their shows' content is first-rate news and opinion, with a strong political position that they unashamedly advocate without shoving it in your face. Chopped judge Aaron Sanchez unabashedly advocates for Latin American cooking, without denigrating other types of cooking and flavor profiles (I learned that phrase from the show, yay me!). Rachel Maddow unabashedly advocates for liberal and progressive policies without (usually) denigrating conservative ideology itself -- by and large she attacks their actions and policies, but she doesn't "diss" someone just for being a conservative. (Very different story at Fox, where the mere fact that you're a liberal is enough to get you sent to purgatory.) Same with Melissa.
How about the rest?
- Well, viewers liked Thomas Gibson, so you moved him to the 5:30 slot, where no one watches. I understand that's going to change, though he will deliver straight news in a daytime slot. Good move.
- Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski -- hated it. Still hate it. Maybe Joe and his band of chortling cronies are popular among Washington insiders, but MSNBC progressive and centrist viewers don't have any use for him. (Joe takes strong positions, and there's nothing wrong with that, but generally he takes lousy positions and he presents them in a combative, ugly manner that most viewers not already watching Fox find unappealing.) If we wanted to watch Don Imus and his band of gawping idiots, we'd find him on wherever the hell he's landed. Make it stop, Phil.
- Jose Diaz-Balert -- solid and unassuming. I hate to point to the fact that you have a Hispanic anchor as a positive, but it is. Moreover, Diaz-Balert is a good host regardless of his ethnicity. A keeper.
- Tamron Hall -- outstanding anchor, very personable without being overly opinionated in a non-opinion news show. Hope NBC doesn't pair her with that toxic lout Matt Lauer and force MSNBC to find someone else.
- Andrea Mitchell -- an icon. She isn't going anywhere, and like her or not, she gives the network some much-needed gravitas.
- Ronan Farrow -- gone and rightfully so. Whether it is fair to his capabilities or not, he came across as a vapid pretty boy. A news network doesn't need a Ryan Seacrest as an anchor.
- Joy Reid -- gone, sadly. Reid has the chops to be a great host, but like first-year Ted Allen, she diluted herself in her presentation. She's better than what we saw on screen, and I think she deserves another shot, this time with the reins loosened. Ted Allen found his groove; I think Reid can find hers.
- The Cycle -- I miss Martin Bashir. Seriously. I can live with the roundtable format with the multiplicity of hosts, though I'm not sure this foursome works very well. All four hosts have enough personalities to host their own show; it might be worth cannibalizing this show and replacing the shows that are going kaput with shows hosted by individual Cycle members. I think Krystal Ball in particular has the dynamic personality and news chops to own a slot.
- Alex Wagner -- love her, Phil. She's tough, smart, and just this side of bombastic. Tons of personality. Keep on keeping on with her.
- Ed Schultz -- passion in spades. Love to see him in a better time slot.
- Al Sharpton -- I never quite grasped why Al got his slot in the first place, but he's held his own and done a strong job. Al has personality and presence in spades. I understand he may be losing the slot. You're gonna be hard-pressed to find a strong replacement, Phil, and if you go all whitebread and wishy-washy in his successor, MSNBC will be the poorer for it. Me, I'd stick with the Rev, or take the brakes off of Reid and give her the slot.
- Chris Matthews -- Beltway insider, wobbly centrist, and loudmouth. All true, but Chris has whacked out a strong career for himself with his over-the-top personality, and he's earned his spot. Chris stays.
- Chris Hayes -- I love Chris Hayes, I really do. He's my kind of media liberal -- smart, impassioned, very knowledgeable, and personable in his own wonky way. I know he was brought in to replicate Rachel's success after Olbermann flamed out, but he was the wrong choice. Olbermann was successful because of his imposing presence, and Chris has never measured up to that. (In all fairness, few would.) I'm not sure what MSNBC's plans are for Hayes, but to kick him to the curb would be another wrong choice. He was fabulous in Up! Maybe pairing him with Kornacke?
- Rachel Maddow -- the gold standard. Keep on keeping on.
- Lawrence O'Donnell -- what he lacks in Rachel's affability he makes up for in intensity. He's also a keeper.
So where does that leave us, Phil? If you replace your current hosts with a bunch of Dean McDermotts, and tone down the political positioning for a more "neutral," centrist stance designed to appeal to that mythical right-leaning independent viewer that Third Way Democrats wrongly insist will win them elections and bring everyone ponies for Christmas, your network will utterly fail. It will be a tepid alternative to the already-tepid CNN. You need strong personalities and a strong, relatively cohesive point of view, presented without shame or waffling but without the bullying and insensitivity (not to mention the outright lying) of Fox News.
Chopped Canada is itself going to be chopped in a season or two, Phil. It's on you to make sure MSNBC doesn't get chopped as well.
7:52 PM PT: Apparently some folks are taking this diary as some sort of backhanded slap at Canada. That would be entirely incorrect. I'm told that Chopped Canada is very popular with Canadian audiences. Works for me. I know that it isn't doing so well with American audiences, and to me, that's because it lacks the more forceful personalities of the American version. That's my point, nothing more.