HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Barefoot Contessa

Ina Garten-N Y Times 3/18/07

Business section story today...Chowhound mention...

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Just finished the NY Times article about Ms. Garten. I have known Ms. Garten, as an acquaintance, NOT AS A PERSONAL FRIEND, since she opened her place in West Hampton Beach. We patronized her store in East Hampton from the day she opened. Yes, we have a place in East Hampton, a modest 2 bedroom home and we, like most of the local people out here are not elitist as the article suggests. It so happens that East Hampton is simply one of the most beautiful places in the US.

    We have seen Ina and her husband strolling the streets holding hands, smooching at a local restaurant on Newtown Lane and dining at Candy Kitchen in Bridgehampton, which is the furthest thing from fancy dining that one can find out here.

    Ina Garten is "real people" and she is to be congratulated for her well earned success.

    1 Reply
    1. re: banaker

      the article was complimentary to mrs. garten. i think you're being overly-defensive. the "elitist" comment was actually a quote from HERE.

      obviously she's tremendously successful. but why people would pay $10.95 for a box of friggin' brownie mix is beyond my comprehension.

    2. I actually am ambiguous about Ina Garten, both her show and her personality. But I found it interesting to see Chowhound mentioned prominently.

      Once when Jane Goldman, editor in chief of Chowhound.com, was quoted:
      “It’s been interesting to watch the Food Network’s evolution from cooking shows with accomplished chefs to cooking and other shows with less-accomplished hosts, Programmers have discovered that — no surprise — personality and charisma on television are important.”

      Second when the article mentioned Chowhound's obsequious ban on attacks on Foofd Network personalities specifically.

      I guess we all know where Chowhound stands on Food Network and the kind of programming the editorial staff approves of and disapproves of.

      1. Read the article today as well. Interesting that the Chowhound editor made the comment she did, from what I gather people like Garten's show *in spite* of her personality. I'm sure she's a wonderful person in real life but the camera portrays her as too reserved and even cold as if she feels forced to be on television. Having said that, her food is excellent.

        2 Replies
        1. re: Roland Parker

          Wow, I so disagree! She seems much more relaxed and natural than most TV hosts - and she's relatable for (tending towards introverted) me. I find her much more soothing and warm than cold. But your perspective is equally valid and interesting to me - this is obviously a totally subjective matter. It says something about me - in real life I tend to find gregarious people exhausting, I couldn't spend 5 minutes around someone like Kelly Rippa for example.

          1. re: julesrules

            I'm with you. Ina comes across on-camera as relaxed, friendly and confident.

        2. It's too bad they focused on that one thread with the negative comments, which I think was actually an all-encompassing Food Network host thread. If they would have quoted this thread, it would have been much more relevant: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/33125...

          3 Replies
          1. re: Katie Nell

            I agree. And, as far as I know, Jane Goldman is the EIC of Chow.com - not chowhound - don't think CH has editors.

            1. re: Katie Nell

              I find the whole idea of reporting on CH threads to be very odd - it's such "old news" by the time it makes the paper - and it doesn't really reflect the interactive, combative/debate nature of message boards where the people quoted might not even stand behind what they said two days later. I read papers to get a thoughtful perspective - not just some fairly random pithy quotes. Anyway I think this has been discussed in other threads so I'll stop now.

              1. re: julesrules

                I agree... It's just too bad that it could have been left as a nasty comment on a message board, but now it's in an article that she will probably see. (Not that she probably hasn't heard it all before, but the original comment was unnecessary and irrelevant.)

            2. The original comment has been removed