HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Diners, Drive-Ins, and Disasters

A local weekly free entertainment newspaoer in the Twin Cities has a cover story feature on Page Productions, the former producer of D,D, & D. The reporter has been following the story for several months. The story makes both Page and Fieri look bad in my opinion.

http://www.citypages.com/2011-10-12/r...

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. That story is 100% one-sided. It's all from Page, and one short passage from someone who works for him (and one quote from Tom Pizzica, who also works with Page, saying both Page and Fieri have big egos). Hard to put much stock in it.

    1 Reply
    1. re: LurkerDan

      Just because Fieri and the Food Network chose not to comment for the story does not necessarily invalidate the article.

    2. I agree....not exactly a 'fair and balanced' story. In terms of journalism, it's very poor.

      11 Replies
      1. re: SherBel

        Have you seen what passes as "journalism" these days?

        1. re: SherBel

          Since the Food Network and Guy Fieri apparently are not talking, and were apparently given the opportunity to get their side into this story, what else do you suppose the reporter should have done other than pointing out that they declined to comment?

          1. re: John E.

            More important than the quality of the journalism displayed in the article is what level of truth one ascribes to a one-sided piece. One party to a lawsuit has chosen to put their story out to the media. The fact that the other side won't comment says nothing about the veracity or lack thereof of the article's allegations. So yes, as you said in the OP, the story makes them both look bad, I agree. But the story doesn't do anything to convince me that I am now any closer to knowing the truth about Guy Fieri or his behavior.

            1. re: LurkerDan

              I'm pretty sure the lawsuit has been settled for some time. The no comment from GF and FN is only because there is no upside for them to speak to the media. Right now, it is sour grapes by a former producer. If Fieri or the Food Network respond it only gives credibility to Page. While we don't know the whole truth, I'm inclined to believe there is some truth to the way Page and staff characterized Fieri. I am also sure Page was a tough person to work for. Again, you seem to blaming the reporter for a one-sides piece. It's not his fault the other side chooses not to speak to him.

              1. re: John E.

                In what way have I blamed the reporter? Others may have, but I don't believe I have. The article is what it is, I'm not blaming them or praising them. I am saying, however, that there isn't much to take away from the article; there's no way to judge whether this story is 100% truth, 50% truth, or complete fabrication (by Page, not the author). As I stated earlier, the story doesn't do anything to convince me that I am now any closer to knowing the truth about Guy Fieri or his behavior.

                1. re: LurkerDan

                  It was the general vibe that I got from your post. If that was not your intent, sorry about that. I still am inclined to believe that Page lost the contract because Fieri forced the issue. Page also sounds like a tool, maybe they deserved each other.

              2. re: LurkerDan

                Sometimes you simply have to judge based on one side of the story. That's the case in all criminal trials - the defendant is not obligated to testify and you can't draw inferences from that one way or another. You can say you don't believe in Page's story but to say you can't judge because it's only 1 side of the story is bunk.

                1. re: Worldwide Diner

                  Comparing this to a criminal trial is absurd. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has a burden of proof that they have to meet, and just because the defendant doesn't have to testify doesn't mean that the defense doesn't put on a case. And defendants fail to testify for a number of reasons -- there's a reason you're not permitted to draw inferences from it -- but irrespective of that, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury must decide to vote guilty or not guilty based on the evidence put before them. We have nothing like that here.

                  There's a significant difference between being forced to judge -- as in sitting on a jury -- and just being given information to the public and being asked to judge. When being asked, it most certainly is not "bunk" to decline to judge based on the belief that I lack the requisite information to make an informed judgment.

                  I never once said I did not believe Page. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I don't have enough information to judge. And that isn't bunk.

                  1. re: LurkerDan

                    My point is you don't have to believe the story, but to say a story has no validity because it's one sided is bunk. My point in bringing up a criminal trial is that the defendant can testify - just as Guy can present his side of the story but chooses not to. In that event, you can only render an opinion on one side of the story. You can decline to give your opinion, but that's much different than saying you can't offer an opinion.

                    1. re: Worldwide Diner

                      For the second time in this thread, words are being put in my mouth. I never said the story has no validity (though perhaps that is how you interpreted me saying that it's "hard to put much stock in it"). What I said is that it is very hard to evaluate how much truth there is when only one side is presented. And I try not to make judgments when I don't feel I have enough information. And what judgments I do draw might surprise you. A "hit piece" like this (that's how I see it) is, if anything, likely to lead me to draw the opposite judgment from that intended by Page (who knew damn well what he was contributing to).

                      In a criminal trial, the prosecution presents its case and the jury evaluates the evidence and witnesses. The defense then presents its case and the jury evaluates the evidence and witnesses. After all that, the jury decides if the prosecution has met its burden. The jury is not asked if the prosecution has met its burden before the defense gets to present its case. The defense may choose not to present a case (which is a very different thing than the defendant not testifying) but generally speaking, not presenting a case is akin to saying "we do not believe the prosecution has met its burden so we don't have to do anything".

                      So, if you want insist on likening it to that scenario (which again is, IMO, not applicable at all), well, I'm going to have to agree with the defense, the prosecution has not met its burden to prove that Fieri is an ass. :-)

                  2. re: Worldwide Diner

                    Sometimes one simply doesn't have to judge at all.

            2. "gizzled veteran" is just not something anyone should write about a woman. srsly? you want us to picture some lady with a scraggly unkempt beard, badly in need of a shave? wow.

              1. Two bloated egos quarreling about money? Yawn.

                4 Replies
                1. re: Veggo

                  I agree with Veggo, although GF is why I left the FN the minute the Cooking Channel came on. He is nothing more than an overgrown teenager who cooks and flaunts the bling. GF, Paula Deen, Sandra what's-her-name are not who I want to see on food tv. I feel sorry for his children--can you imagine calling him "dad?"

                  IMO the FN has become a promoter of trash. The only person left for me is Ina and I wish she would bale for the Cooking Channel like most of the other legitimate hosts have done (altho some are on both). Those ridiculous shows like Man vs Food are insulting.

                  1. re: sandiasingh

                    His children see a hard working, successful, entrepreneurial dynamic individual. Qualities that more parents should strive for.

                    1. re: sandiasingh

                      You do realize FN and CC are essentially the same network expanded over two channels. CC has equally as "trashy," as you put it, shows that aren't about standing at a stove and cooking.

                      PS: Man v. Food isn't on either FN or CC.

                    2. re: Veggo

                      Yes, who really cares about this backroom stuff?

                    3. I particpated in one of Guy Fieri's 'Tailgate Warriors' events here in Seattle at Seahawk's stadium in August of '10; my team were not the finalists who competed on-screen, but were runner's up so got front row seats at the taping.
                      Guy was VERY rude to the contestants when not taping, and he SURE got excited when the SEA-gals cheerleaders made an apperance; I can attest personally to viewing him looking ONLY at their bod's while they were around - it was kind of disgusting and embarassing.
                      Many of us who were there were commenting that that wise-cracking funny guy from DDD show (which I tired of years ago), was not really in evidence that day... just sayin'

                      1 Reply
                      1. re: gingershelley

                        I agree the guy is a doucheb@g. We recently ran into him in a place featured by DDD. A friend from our party tried to say hello and compliment him on his show. He looked her up and down (she clearly wasn't his type), refused to shake her extended hand and walked away from her as she was talking. What an overinflated ego from a nobody in my opinion.