T.V. Food Documentaries and ‘The Blame Game’
There is no doubt that food issues are part of the current media zeitgeist. From full length theatrical documentaries to countless news pieces on a seemingly daily basis that address various aspects of food production, it is obvious that we’re living in a cultural moment where people are concerned more than ever about where their food comes from. Part of this zeitgeist is, of course, a rising awareness about farmed animal welfare problems, animal rights philosophies, plant-based diets, and a growing trend towards all things veg. This paper from the U.K. takes a look at one aspect of the media, what they term “campaigning culinary documentaries” (or CCDs), which they define as “vehicles for television cookery stars to position themselves at the forefront of solving food ‘crises’, and to expand their brand.” For our readers, this will likely be most recognizable in the work of Jamie Oliver, who has produced numerous CCDs addressing everything from animal welfare to childhood nutrition.
CCDs occupy a particular niche in the current media focus on food: “CCDs are an important contemporary resource for imagining the politics of food and the relationships between consumers, the food industry and the state,” say the authors, who call them an “important space for airing views about food politics, and offer narratives of critique and of potential transformation.” However, as with any media analysis, it is important to be able to unpack the message of a particular program, and this paper seeks to do just that. Using examples of CCDs from the U.K., specifically a series of programs from Channel 4: Jamie’s Ministry of Food (fronted by Jamie Oliver, first broadcast 2008), Hugh’s Chicken Run and its sequel, Chickens… Hugh… and Tesco, Too (both Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, aired 2008 and 2009), Jimmy and the Giant Supermarket (Jimmy Doherty, 2012), and The People’s Supermarket (Arthur Potts Dawson, 2011).
Taken together, this set of programs presents a fairly broad range of food issues, and shows a steady trend in how “responsibilization” (the assigning of responsibility / blame) occurs on these shows. The shows generally fit within the reality / lifestyle genres, and the authors note that “the ways in which consumers are responsibilized within CCDs – to cook their way out of obesity or poverty, or to shop their way to improved chicken welfare – reaffirms wider arguments about how lifestyle and reality TV naturalize neoliberal values by transforming consumption into a form of citizenship.” In other words, many of these shows place responsibility directly on the consumer to change the system by “voting with their wallets.” While it’s true that some CCDs “promote forms of activism in relation to progressive causes (particularly animal welfare and ‘fairer’ trade),” they are not consistent, and furthermore the “structural explanations of food ‘crises’ – and structural solutions – are often absent, or limited to specific targets.” For example, while the program Chickens. . . Hugh . . . And Tesco, Too “might highlight the power of supermarket chains over both producers and consumers – and the relationships between supermarket profits and animal welfare – it does so by vilifying Tesco, largely absolving all other supermarket chains (or the entire capitalist industrial food system) of blame.” Responsibility is placed on the consumer to make “the right choice” of supermarket, rather than suggesting the option that the system itself may be corrupt on some level.
Many advocates may intuitively be familiar with this sort of critique, however, the conclusions of the article also point to a further issue with CCDs: the creation / reinforcement of their hosts as kind of moral entrepreneurs and political persuaders. “CCDs portray food personalities’ willingness to ‘do something’, to imagine and deliver entrepreneurial solutions and to individually make change happen.” This is at once reinforcing of and counterintuitive to the general take home message of the programs that individuals are the ones responsible for changing systemic problems. The authors go a step further and suggest that “the real beneficiaries of the campaigns to address ‘food crises’ are the food personalities themselves, as they add value and an increasing moral authority to their brand.” It is a scathing assessment, but one that may be worth considering next time we see a celebrity chef or other personality supporting a minimal animal welfare change directly related to their food brand or television show.