Sign up for NewsletterJoin Hardens Community | Member Log-in

Restaurant News & Views

12th November 2009

Did Good Food Guide’s seeming on-air inspection of Heston’s Little Chef mislead viewers? (UPDATED)

A Harden’s investigation has revealed that last week’s seeming on-air inspection by the Editor of the Good Food Guide (GFG) of Heston Blumenthal’s Little Chef Popham restaurant was no such thing. Not only had the relevant listing decision already been made, but the guide was already printed and sitting in a warehouse at the time of the visit!

Did Heston Change Little Chef? – broadcast on Channnel 4 last week – tracked the success or otherwise of Heston Blumenthal’s involvement with Little Chef, six months or so after he first became involved with the roadside chain.

One of the three main themes of the programme was whether the Little Chef Popham might achieve a first-ever listing for a roadside restaurant in the GFG. The programme implied a number of times that the outcome of the visit to the restaurant by the GFG’s Editor shown on the programme would affect whether or not the restaurant might be listed in the Guide.

In fact, however, it has emerged in a Harden’s investigation that the books had already been printed before this supposedly make-or-break visit even took place.

So were viewers misled? Certainly, the small sample we’ve spoken to universally formed the same view we did: that what they were being shown was some sort of real inspection (if one – as the Guide makes a big deal of its independence and anonymity – of a rather odd sort).

However, TwoFour, the production company, says that the programme, which involved the GFG Editor tasting (and gushingly praising) a whole series of dishes, “did not imply or try to imply” that the GFG Editor’s visit was an ‘inspection’. And we never used the word ‘inspection’, they say.

We suggest that, before you read on, you read the transcript of the ‘set up’ for the piece in the Footnote below.

...

Back with us now?

TwoFour says that if you look at the exchange at paras 5 and 6, the matter is put beyond doubt.

Really?

1. The first words viewers heard in the section (para 1 of transcript below) clearly imply futurity and doubt. The voiceover introduced the section by saying that ‘there’s a chance that Popham could be listed”.

2. Heston then twice confirms (paras 2 and 3) that this is a real inspection. He “is” being tested (not “has”), and he will be “doomed” if the food is not up to standard.

3. It is at this point (paras 5 and 6) that we get the exchange which TwoFour says sets the record straight. Heston does indeed seem to suggest that the decision might already have been taken. But perhaps he really didn’t quite know what was going on? He’s contradicting what he’s implied twice already, so which Heston are viewers to believe?

At this point, again, the voiceover could easily have put the facts beyond doubt. But didn’t. (In fact, at no point in the programme is there any explicit description of the purpose and effect of the visit.)

4. It is left to the GFG Editor to pick up on Heston’s comment, and her answer is a study in ambiguity: “well, let’s go through it shall we”. We interpreted that to mean (and still do on watching the clip again) that the Editor wanted to taste the food before commenting on it, which would hardly be unreasonable. At no point are viewers told that there was any prior inspection.

5. Even if viewers were slightly confused at this point, any doubts were put straight by the voiceover: “Will everything be back up to standard at Popham?” (Para 7). (Not: “was the food on some previous occasion(s) when the establishment was inspected by the GFG back up to standard at Popham.”) How could the implication that the Editor’s visit had consequences be any clearer?

There follows something that looks remarkably like an inspection, half way through which Heston and the GFG Editor agree that the food is “so far so good”. Good enough for what? To go into the Guide, presumably.

Tomorrow, in Part II, we pose some important questions for the Good Food Guide, arising from ‘the-visit-that-wasn’t-an-inspection’. Not the least of these is: if it wasn’t an inspection, what was it?

TRANSCRIPT OF THE LEAD-UP TO THE VISIT-THAT-WASN'T-AN-INSPECTION

Full text of the introduction of the relevant section of the programme (paragraph numbers inserted for easy reference)

[Screen emerges from black fade]

Voiceover

A few weeks later, Heston is on his way back to Popham for a very special meeting with the GFG’s editor. Roadside restaurant chains like Little Chef have never had so much as a mention in the Guide, but now there’s a chance that Popham could be listed as one of Britain’s best restaurants. (Para 1)

Blumenthal (in car, heading for rendezvous)

I’m really nervous about this. Very nervous. If Liz tastes those sauces [three are specified] and it’s as bad as it was the last time we tried it, ah, we’re knackered, we’re doomed. (Para 2)

Blumenthal (in Little Chef Popham)

I’ve never really been in a situation like this. It’s my name on the menu but I haven’t been involved with this for the last six months, so I am being tested [cut away to GFG Editor entering restaurant] on somebody else’s performance and that’s a strange feeling. I thought it was Ian supposed to be the control freak, not me. (Para 3)

[Editor of GFG enters, kisses Blumenthal]

Editor of GFG

Hello (Para 4)

Blumenthal

So I’m desperate to know, has this made it into the Guide or not? (Para 5)

Editor of GFG

You know what, shall we order some food, and we’ll go through it [giggles] (Para 6)

[Cut to view from outside of Blumenthal and Editor of GFG at table]

Voiceover

Will everything be back up to standard in Popham and will it be the first Little Chef to make it into the GFG? (Para 7)

[Advertisement break]

Voiceover

It’s judgement day for Heston. He’s tasting his menu with Liz Carter the GFG’s Editor and one of the most demanding critics. Will the food at Popham be good enough to make it into the Guide? (Para 8)

Back to middle of article

PS (17 November) Channel 4 tells us that, in their view, the programme did not mislead viewers in any material way.

So, next time you watch ‘reality’ TV on Channel 4, bear in mind that you can see something, which

1. never happened (and never could have happened) as portrayed; and

2. had none of the consequences it was billed as having.

but that you’re still not being misled “in any material way”.

Fiction lives on reality TV on Channel Four.

Comments (0)

To post a comment you must be registered and signed in.

Register | Sign in
Advanced Search
Find restaurants to match the following criteria
location (only one!)
key features

quality
other features (London searches only)
Map Search
Find venues by location using UK or London Maps
close button