As the President of the Travel Channel, I tend to avoid website debates about our programs, as I much prefer to let said discussions run their course. Where I draw the line is when people with an agenda attempt to smear the reputation and intent of the network and its producers. I’m responding now because it seems someone has posted what appears to be a network document sent to the Romanian Tourism Board. Such an action only reinforces my belief that this “debate” is less of an "I didn't enjoy the show” critique, and more of a (however loosely) organized attempt to deflect from the Romania show.

The Travel Channel stands for many things, but at our core, we promise to bring our viewers authorship and editorial independence. By authorship, I mean, we allow our talent and our producers to create and produce programming that depicts their honest account of what they experienced, what they were able to capture on tape, and the impressions they took away. Through authorship, we tell viewers this was their experience - and therefore it doesn't matter if they might have had a different experience than what others have experienced. As a personal example, I recently saw two editions of No Reservations on London and Jamaica, two places I know very well as a Brit. If I had been making those programs, I would have likely showcased different locales and interviewed different people. In fact, I know I would have. That said, it doesn't mean that the shows as broadcast were wrong -- far from it. This is what authorship is all about.



This leads me to my second point of editorial independence. As a network, we work with a range of people and entities involved in tourism around the world. We appreciate their help and support – they are our partners. As partners, we provide them a commitment to offering fair and accurate portrayals of what our talent and their respective crews experience. Some may mistake this as giving them the right to insist that our programs are always “positive”, and it is not unusual for them to try and direct us to “positive” locations and experiences on the ground. We always listen to what they have to say, and consider what they are suggesting, but the final decision as to what we broadcast ALWAYS rests with us. That's 100% non-negotiable. We maintain 100% editorial control.

In closing, Tony and the executive producers at Zero Point Zero have made dozens of shows for the Travel Channel and not one episode has been received without both praise and criticism – to me that is the sign of quality, inspiring content. During the Romania episode, in posted responses on the message boards, and even in Tony's blog on http://anthony-bourdain-blog.travelchannel.com/2008/02/...-hell-happened.html, the team has spoken about what they experienced – and have admitted choices they may have made differently with hindsight. To me, this reaffirms their commitment to the veracity of the program and the series. I stand by them, and the network stands by the show.



The debate may continue on the Travel Channel boards and beyond. However, as the head of the network, we stand by Zero Point Zero, the Romania episode, the No Reservation series, and of course Tony – as he is the reason all of us tune in each and every Monday night.

For those of you reading this response out of context, tune in for the repeat broadcast on Monday, March 10th at 8PM E/P, to see what all the fuss is about.

I hope that you're all proud of yourselves now... You've finally got the network prez's knickers in a bunch! So what if Romania sucked? You want to see a happy Romania show? Then send Rachel there with $40 and you'll get what you've expected!

Thanks for weighing in on this Big Cheese!
mod_ben

I'm so glad to see that the Head Honcho(s) support this show and its crew. I commend you for having a balance of many kinds of television on the network, to serve a range of viewers.

Travel is always a very personal experience, and while there's certainly a place for tourism ads and "survey the country"-type shows, NR ain't it.

Some like it hot...the world is a marvelous buffet, and I like mine served Bourdain-style. It's okay if it's not for everyone - they have other options too. So thanks for serving all of us, and not making everything so bland it's not worth consuming.

Tony, on his blog, agrees that using Zamir (a Russian) as a tour guide in Romania was a poor choice. Well, that was an honest assessment. If everyones' attempts in Romania to set up genuine experiences on off-the-beaten paths were thwarted at every turn, then the show should have been aborted early on (particularly since it appeared to be causing frustration). If Tony and crew do not have this authority, then this is indicative that maybe they should. If Tony and his crew do have this authority, then they did not exercise good judgment. Period.

Can't help but think that most of the problems would have been avoided with proper preparation and by using a well-placed Romanian acting as intermediary between the official tourism entities, the restaurants, the homes and the crew itself - it would have saved you all a lot of headaches. It was stated on another thread by your producers that, "We well know that our very best shows are the ones where we are allowed to see people as they are—not as our official hosts or government representatives wish us to see them." If the crew wasn't getting cooperation and chose to back out...Romania would have probably belatedly begun courting the Travel Channel, and No Reservations in particular, in the interest of good PR for Romania, a boost for tourism, and the probability of a great future show.

It appears that what most people object to is that the whole show (with the exception of a few minutes) on Romania seemed either negative or campy. Fans know that watching Tony become sardonic at times in any show is amusing (and addicting). No one expects him to be "Mr. Happy-Face" (we would faint if he were), however, watching him for an hour tour Romania with nearly complete disdain was disconcerting to the viewers, unfair to the 23,000,000 people in Romania and, frankly, depressing.

The reasoning given in the thread referenced above regarding the viewers' negative reaction, that "We didn’t show those people the country and scenes they wanted to see -- instead we showed them what we experienced during our brief time in Romania" does not adequately defend an ill-prepared, ill-conceived trip with an increasingly grouchy host. Enough with the Corporate Speak above....next time get it right...your viewers and the people of Romania deserve better.

A Longtime Fan of No Reservations (and A Cook's Tour)

WHERE IS MY POSTING?
I MADE IT RIGHT AFTER THE PRESIDENT MADE HIS?

MY POSTING IS NOT THERE ANYMORE, WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF SPEACK IN TRAVEL CHANELL GOOD FOR YOU

IF YOU MAKE A SHOW CALLED "AMERICA" YOU DO NOT GO TO FILM ON JAMAICA AVE AND THE LOW LIFE FROM LONG ISLAND. iF YOU WOULD HAVE PUT AS TITLE DRACULA AND CIMITERY VISIT IN ROMANIA NOBODY WOULD HAVE LOOKED OR CARE ABOUT YOUR PITIFUL SMALL MINDS aS I SEE ALL TRIP WAS PAID BY ROMANIAN OFFICIALS AND THE FREAKS STAYED ON ROMANIAN MONEY AT HILTON (4 STARTS HOTELS AND WHERE VERY WELL TAKEN CARE OF TO PROMOTE ROMANIAN TOURISM) AND HAD MEALS ALLREADY PREPARED FOR THEM, PLANNED IN ADVANCE IN BEST RESTAURANTS AND BEST PLACES.
WHAT A JOKE OF PEOPLE YOU ARE.

Ok, enough with Zamir being a poor choice for a guide...it's getting ridiculous. Some of us actually understand what his role was (and hopefully - will continue to be).
Quote:
"...Where I draw the line is when people with an agenda attempt to smear the reputation and intent of the network and its producers. I’m responding now because it seems someone has posted what appears to be a network document sent to the Romanian Tourism Board."
Sir, would you care to elaborate on this subject?
Quote:
"...we promise to bring our viewers authorship and editorial independence..."
Sir: does it mean that the schedule/planning/choice of location originated with the show producers?
(I know, it's a loaded question...)

I have to agree with iamhungry:
"...regarding the viewers' negative reaction, that "We didn’t show those people the country and scenes they wanted to see -- instead we showed them what we experienced during our brief time in Romania" does not adequately defend an ill-prepared, ill-conceived trip with an increasingly grouchy host. Enough with the Corporate Speak above....next time get it right..."

Sir: I submit to you that your statement, although carefully worded, did not clear the air (yet).

Respectfully yours

To everyone:
Please disregard newyorkgirl entries here...
It's widely known that girls in that particular locale can be extremely emotional, if not downright aggressive.
To moderator: is it possible to actually have a dialogue here?

newyorkgirl,
Your post was not removed, you posted it on a different thread. I only edited out one part where you insulted another user. Open debate is welcome here but I do not think insulting other users is fair. For more information about our forum policies, please see the Visitor Agreement link at the bottom of this page.
mod_ben
Here is your post that you are talking about.

As a Romanian I understand perfectly why the show elicited so much reaction. It’s true that Tony so far had seemed to be a gracious traveler, but he forgot one thing he strongly believed as a chef (I read his book – Kitchen confidential), when dealing with foreigners and especially when traveling: be aware of cultural sensibilities.

Romanians suffered a lot because of Russians and to bring a drunken ex-KGB Russian calling everyone “comrade” was an affront and I‘m honestly amazed no one punched that guy in the mouth.

If Tony and Zamir are such good friends why Tony didn’t let Zamir show him New York , with his “connections” he might be able to show Tony the slums and everything else that doesn’t represent the United States.

Maybe it was not your intention to make fun of us but that’s how it was viewed, and not only by Romanians.

The show is a shame on you, not on us. Romania's struggle for democracy started few years ago and of course things might still be out of whack, but as you said we've survived hordes of invaders for more than 3000 years so your little show is not going to affect Romania.

This was just our (Romanians outside Romania) showing of pride in Romania, this show should have been influenced by a culture rich in tradition. You didn’t show us Romania. What Tony show us is what uncultivated foreigners think of Romania and what Russians would like people to see of Romania.

If you just want to get a glint of what Romanians are about watch a few youtube movies about Romania, especially the one with Romanian inventions that changed our world.

Too bad all of this is going to fall on deaf ears in as much you’re not interested in a quality show as I had thought, but instead promote that snarly touristy attitude that makes America despised in Europe.

Romania episode was fun and Mr. Bourdain's pal, Zamir, in that silly pirate outfit was hysterical. Just two friends enoying each other's company. Love it.

and to newyorkgirl, please take your horribly written comments and go back to Queens, immediately.

Eh...no need to elaborate, Sir.
http://www.cotidianul.ro/index.php?id=18268&art=44040&cHash=fecaa1a14a
Sorry...I should known better.

To my Romanian Fellows:

I completely agree that Tony's show was bad. However, if you look in other sources what is written about Romania, it's pretty similar, only "sensational" stuff, maybe to increase their audience (see the comments about "honesty" of those ignorant fans). Recently, one of my American colleagues gave a number of National Geographic which had a big article about Romania. I was amazed what I saw. All pictures were with poor Gypsies (gen Borat), or with orphaned kids. I look on their website to see what is written about Romania. http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/countries/country_romania.html
Again it's unbelievable. Only pictures with Gypsies and Csángós (a kind of Hungarian Gypsies). Music of Romania: Only Gypsies Music (Actually, I never hear about the majority of these "artists"). I didn't see a Romanian artist! How it is possible?
It looks that Gypsies (about 3% of Romania Population) are the only inhabitants of Romania!
Looking there, I understand better Tony's show. It seems that in Western Media it was built in time a myth about showing Romania (maybe other small countries as well). If you want to be successful with a show or an article about Roamnia, it seems that you should show the worst part of that country.
Guys, we should do something! I like your comments about AB crap, we should continue our fight with western stereotypes about presenting Romania. Let's oblige them to be honest and tell the truth about our country where we were born. Good Luck!

SHAME ON YOU. YOU TOOK OUR MONEY (ABOUT 20.000 EUROS) AND THAN YOU INSULTED US ON OUR MONEY !! HOW FAR CAN YOU GO ??? IM VERY PISSED OFF

I would have to agree with The Pres and disagree with iamhungry about the show. I don't think it is corporate speak to say that you've given your crew license to create a real experience for the audience. Obviously that doesn't mean that it always turns out, although iamhungry, I had to laugh about Bourdain being "the talent."

Being in one place for a week, it's possible the crew thought that things would turn up... 45 minutes out of several days of shooting--it seems possible. How do you know until it is horribly too late that the best compiled hour is still going to stink like last week's socks?

Additionally, for those of you who are from Romania or have a love for all things Romanian, trust me, coming from Las Vegas, what you generally see on TV has absolutely nothing to do with reality, because as real as a traveler tries to get, in the end, they are still visitors.

Keep in mind too that if one episode about Romania is your biggest complaint after four seasons you'll likely get over it. Definitely not a jumping the shark moment in my book.

"We were high all the time, sneaking off to the walk-in [refrigerator] at every opportunity to 'conceptualize.' Hardly a decision was made without drugs. Pot, quaaludes, cocaine, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms soaked in honey and used to sweeten tea, Seconal, Tuinal, speed, codeine and, increasingly, heroin, which we'd send a Spanish-speaking busboy over to Alphabet City to get." (Bourdain, Anthony (2000). Kitchen Confidential. New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN 158234082X).

I think it was the same story in Romania.No documentation, using a drunk rusian excommunist KGB guide ( the romanian language is latin, like french, italian and spanish, not slave, like in Russia, Ukraina, Bulgaria,or Cekhia and romanians hate russians after the atrocities committed in the WW II), going in places with no relevation ( Dracula did exist just in Bram Stoker’s book), celebrating Haloween which does not matter in Romania ,Bourdain’s crew prooved how unprofesional could be.

Why do you not rename the series : NO INSPIRATION ?

I think we have a double problem here, and naturally people tend to take sides according to the "side" of the problem they see.

The Country
First, there is the show subject: Romania. Being Romanian myself and having lived here for over 30 years (furthermore working in the travel industry in Romania), I cannot deny the issues the crew met.
- Just weeks ago, while cycling across Bucharest to shoot pictures I wanted to use on my travel page, I was chased by guards for wanting to take (exterior) pictures of two buildings in the city: one was a museum and the other one a church.
- Further afield, after 50 years of next to no private property, people have developed a very strong (and weird, indeed) sense of property. If there is a parking place I use in front of my house, then I am the only one "entitled" to that. If I am a guard at an office building, then you cannot chain your bike in front of MY building. And so on.
- Then, as I also mentioned on the blog, I would not call a success story a country which has a slogan like "Fabulospirit", nor the people that found that "solution" to promote anything, be it a cake or a country
- I would not call a success story a country where, in a city like Sibiu (a.k.a. Cultural Capital of Europe in 2007), the beginning of 2007 saw the closure of some of the most important hotels and of the local airport for... restoration.
- People are still afraid of themselves in this country and fear is sometimes expressed with a "don't do that" / "you are not allowed to do that" / "what happens if...?"

The Romanian staff
- The Tourism Office which recommended the crew places to see was a source of problems. They promoted the typical utopian tour where one thinks of going to wonderland, without any contact with reality. Other than that however, the request the Tourist Office sent to travel agents via the Bucharest - based ministry, was clear: there was precise information on who was coming and why. The travel agent that proposed the program which was chosen by the Bucharest ministry had all information he/she needed. It was enough to see one of Athony Bourdain's shows, and realize that Jaristea or Motel Dracula are not the things the crew is interested in presenting, but rather Romanians, regular people, as they are, be them good or bad, their cuisine, habits and life. And the average Romanian does not go to Jaristea, even though meals are OK. The over staged, loud, continuous, 3 hour show there is again beyond anything that would be "regular" in that (or any for that matter) country.
- The travel agent did some major mistakes by not providing a program according to the customer. Instead they provided the typical, dusty tour one throws the customer before closing down for the day. They added a couple of "nice" (rather tacky I would say) restaurants and thought that the journalists would swallow their poems. The disaster was guaranteed.
- The crew arrived, tried to do their job, and could not even follow the proposed program. As mentioned in the official request of the ministry, they tried to shoot a movie in the places they visited; this was the very point in their coming. Instead of local assistance, they met the narrow minded face of a bodyguard playing the king. Other than that, the crew could not go or shoot in places along the way for reasons which had nothing to do with, say, security or privacy, but with a lack of common sense. People avoided them. Being a Romanian, I cannot say this is a hospitable approach anywhere and at any time. Of course, one can argue, the crew did not go to the Right Places. Indeed, where is real Romania in the show, other than on the mici grill? Where is Bucharest's Nicoresti or La Berbecu', where is the "berarie", where is the Gara Lipscani, where are the sheepfolds in the mountains and their great patrons cooking balmos or sheep ciorba, where are those God damned night accelerat trains full of real, poor (or rich, whatever) people? Where is Sulina and its remoteness? Where are the ladies selling "seminte, baieti" at a street corner and the kurtos kolacs or covrigi bakers? Where is any monastery and its vegetarian ciorba? They do not exist in the show because Someone (i.e. the responsible tourism office, respectively the ministry behind it) did not want to show them to the world. For the employees there are (this is crystal clear) afraid. Afraid of their own incompetence. One can say that the travel agent was bad and provided a poor package. OK, it can happen anywhere, but what about the person which picked the offer and recommended it to the customer? The customer might do his / her own research or not, this is not for us to judge. He / she has the right to receive a good service. Otherwise the provider is to blame. Easy.
- Even now, after the show was on, instead of seeing they have a problem, the Romanian government chose to do a cheap hide and seek show: "I am not guilty, I do not know, I was not there, I had no information, I did what I was told" etc. Do we see anyone fired for this utter mistake? Do we see apologies from the people paid by the tax payer? Do we see an official stand point to the Travel Channel? No, we just see some cheap quarrels in newspapers and at TV, and then it is all history. Until the next mistake. Possibly bigger.

Then we have the Travel Channel Crew. Yes, they did not do their own research about places. This is their mistake, but it happens because they trusted the provider, which should have been trustworthy. They did not choose the best guide for this destination. Mr. Bourdain admitted that on his blog, so much unlike the Romanian Government which never admitted its fault. With a wrong guide and on a bad program however, the crew arrived in Romania. They experienced problems along the way and they could not do their job right. Can anyone blame them for becoming angry at this situation? The point where the show becomes subjective (as in "this country sucks") was just a matter of 'when', and not 'if'.

So, if you ask me, all parties involved here had their share in the negative show. However, those that were the very source of the problem are the tourism office and the ministry behind it. The country is far from perfect, it was a source of problems as well, and the crew did not research properly / did not pick the 'right' guide, but let us face it: Morocco is not perfect, and the show on this country was great. There is no need to go in Casablanca's medina at night. But one needs to be told not to.

My opinion anyway.

OK, newyorkgirl enough is enough. We get your point! Everyone from the Travel Channel President, Tony himself and Zero Point Zero Productions stand by the show they produced and so do I. The show was what it was. Please get over it. I support Tony fully in what ever he does even though I sometimes get miffed by some of his Jimmy Buffett comments. However that is life and I move on.

I think this also speaks to why we are seeing the same countries repeatedly. It is better to see Japan three or four times...after all, who can say they've been to the US simply by seeing NY or LA, yet I'm sure we all know people who've done it and say they've seen the whole thing. Instead it seems like the best shows are the ones where Bourdain and crew do not have to rely on the tourism board but know someone from the region.

I will say, in comparison, Michael Palin's New Europe did seem to make Romania more inviting, as a comparison check the two scenes in the same graveyard as evidence. But I watch Palin for another reason. He never seems to look at the food, and just seems to blunder about being the friendly British guy. I'm sure there are plenty of Romanians who will still not like that show either.

I think that the choice to do a show with someone who sends in video and explains why they want him to visit is a sound idea as it gets back to being less of an outsider at the whims of Mr. Sang, the Romanian Tourist Board and the like.

Finally, thank you Alex for your well thought out, non-cap, and legit points.