Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Rachael Ray...YES, You Heard It Here – LEAVE THE POOR WOMAN ALONE!!!

There was an unusually NON-noteworthy interview with RR last night on Nightline. It was particularly annoying, because it had been promoted as if it new ground had been broken. No question was asked that hadn’t been asked before and no answer was given that we hadn’t heard before.

There were 3 main topics covered. One was her FHM interview. Who cares? THAT was so 2003 and people should be more worried about her awful food than her pictures in a little apron licking a wooden spoon. Anyway, that’s what we all do in our own kitchens ;-), so why shouldn’t she do it in a magazine?

The second topic was her relationship with Dunkin’ Donuts. Yeah, we all know what Tony Bourdain said and, of course, I agree with every word, but this has been covered already…a lot! Next topic!

I’m no fan of Rachael Ray (‘s cooking), BUT even I was offended by the interminable questioning about her desire to have no children. Leave it alone!

WHY does every interviewer feel that Rachael must be quizzed endlessly about how she would rather throw together mediocre recipes than raise a family? Seriously, she should be allowed to do what she wants.

Why do people feel so threatened by a successful woman who doesn’t follow the typical path of 1) career; 2) give it all up to raise a bunch of ingrates; 3) spend the rest of her life treading water, career-wise, to make up for all the time she lost while being home with babies?!!

RR can choose her OWN path in life. As much as I deplore her perpetual Sloppy Joe recipes, I also applaud her right to come up with 50 thousand more, if she wants.

I’m always amazed that she answers these questions with such aplomb. She doesn’t get testy or angry. She actually explains her reasoning, which we really have no right to expect and certainly not after having heard it a million times before. We should have stopped being interested about 300 questions ago.

12 comments:

Lys said...

Oy vey - they just can't find anything "original" to ask her? My lord, that would annoy me. I agree - media - move on already.

DebCarol said...

Uber successful women are always a target for interviews such as this. Does anyone beat up Guy Fieri and his "relationship" with TGI Fridays? Paula Deen and Smithfield Ham? Or how about Alton Brown and Welch's?

And as for kids ... wow, no one's business AT ALL. This is all just an example of the media eating its own.

Emily said...

I completely agree!

I also agree with Debcarol.

The Short (dis)Order Cook said...

Everyone? So when are we going to see the photos of you licking chocolate off a spoon in your underwear? ;-) (My own kitchen underwear photoshoot was rejected by everyone but "Soldier of Fortune" and "Pig Farming Weekly".

Lay off Rachael Ray? But she's such an easy target. Yeah, the photo shoot was irrelevant, but it's one of those things she'll have to answer to for quite some time considering she's always trying to cultivate this squeaky clean image. I think the interviewer should have asked her exactly why she ended her relationship with DD. Was it the scarf incident, or was it that she allegedly spat out their coffee during a commercial taping and demanded a Starbucks?

Sue said...

Hey Lys,
MY first question to Rachael would be, "Why do you pretend to be so incompetent, while actually taking over the world?" Oh! I think I just answered my own question.

Hey DC,
Right on! Actually, Paula HAS gotten a lot of criticism for being allied with Smithfield, but she doesn't have nearly the same number of detractors that RR has.

The whole kid question bothers me. There are so many legitimate things to criticize her for, let's leave this one alone.

Em,
YEAH!!!

I want that cocktail in your picture.

Hey Rach,
Oh gosh, I'm busted! If you can FIND them, you can see them. You've got to be really hot to get into S of F.

I could hardly believe what I was saying about laying off her. BUT I was expecting something good and juicy from this dumb interview and instead I just got warmed-over dreck...Oh, that reminds me of someone's recipes...

Tom said...

One of the unfortunate things about blogs and replies is that you can't hear the tone of voice -- so I guess we should give SdOC the benefit of the doubt and assume that the second paragraph was meant in jest. Let's leave the snark to the foodnetworkaddict commenters, shall we?

Her food aside (and it's a big aside), I think she's a genius at what she does; few could have capitalized on the opportunities she's had as well as she has, woman or man. She doesn't have anything to answer for in terms of image, and patiently responds to every question she's asked, over and over (even the ones she shouldn't be asked, like about children). You don't learn that kind of media instinct, she was clearly born with it.

It's easy to beat up on RR because she seems to be everywhere. The worst wasn't Anthony Bourdain (so over the top he's like self-parody), but Christopher Kimball in an article in the Washington Post, so prissy I had to read it twice to make sure. (Yet he gets all holier-than-thou when people accuse Cook's Illustrated of being cooking by committee, which shows he can't take what he so willingly doles out).

I can't say I'm pleased by RR's ubiquity, which probably comes at the expense of shows I'd really enjoy watching. But the solution is simply not to watch her, and watch the shows you enjoy instead. Nothing sends the message like viewer numbers.

Netts Nook said...

She is just so funny it is hard to not like her.

healthydelicious said...

bravo! i don't care for her, but I agree that these questions are just done

Anonymous said...

I agree with you except for using the word poor. She's a rich woman not a poor woman.

I personally don't want kids either but since she's in the limelight they seem to always ask these stoupid questions.

Sue said...

Hi Tom!
No, I’m pretty sure SdOC’s tone was exactly what you thought it was. Snarkiness is half the fun, isn’t it? And, amazingly, RR seems to take no offense. (She says she loves Tony Bourdain). Actually, I think RR doesn’t really give any of this comment a lot of notice, because, as you point out, she doesn’t have to.

However, when asked in interviews, I do find it interesting that she DOES answer her critics patiently, because noone, I include myself, really has anything new to say about her.

However, I can’t refrain from one last remark. I don’t fault her success. I don’t fault her talk show. I don’t fault her shilling any product she can get her hands on. (Well, actually, I detest her garbage bowl and beach towel pot holder – THERE’S a fire waiting to happen.) I DO fault her mediocre, ALL-the-same, overly meat-based recipes. She made pork chops the other day that honestly could have fed a baseball team AND the team they were playing against. They were HUGE and that was FOUR servings in Rachael-land. Also would it kill her to use GOOD honey and not the honey bear kind?

And, sure, she is a genius at marketing, but so are huge multi-nationals selling us chemical-laden snack foods and artificially enhanced breakfast cereals. We can admire her "media instincts", but we don’t have to buy into it…or buy anything at all...from her.

Anonymous said...

if you take a good look at those FHM photos, and I'm not being some MCP about staring at them (the overall photo quality that is...ahem...), then you may notice how her head does not jive with that body...

those pix look very doctored and Photoshopped. the proportions of her head and the body under it do not match.

these are not real. boy is this post loaded with Freudian innuendo, or out the window, or whatever...

Anonymous said...

I respect Rachael for not wanting children. I work in the hollywood industry and it is so sad to see how many have kids that are being raised by nanny's rather than mom and dad. And I am not just talking celebs- try producers, directors and such. So Bravo to Rachael to realize she is a career woman who would rather not have a child she will not raise. One sad note - Is I think Rachael would have been a wonderful mom.