I energetically disagree about the Food Network, which seems like a lot of long cooking times using a lot of fresh ingredients making insta-ready meals. It's food porn, and 99% of the people watching it never attempt it. The marketing might be about "shortcuts" and "simple ways," but that's to attract viewers who hold on to the hope of seeing a recipe they might actually try.
I'm suggesting (as Parsnip seems to agree) that they target people who want to cook food to eat, not just people who want to cook food to demonstrate. People who get delivery 80% of the time and cook on lazy Sundays and for dates are what most food media appeals to. It'd be easier to learn to cook with unedited video of an operating church kitchen over two days than with 48 hours of Food Network programming.
Note that Food Network recipes on their website may not be quite like what you illustrate. In my experience, they have lots of squared-away recipes that don't take long and are reliable crowd-pleasers. Even the crazed flavortown troll, Guy Fieri, has some really solid recipes on the Food Network website. It might have sucked in his restaurant on Times Square but I've made a bunch of his recipes and they've been exactly what was wanted/needed. Some of that may be because a bunch of his recipes are from third parties, but honestly I don't care: dude's 'channel' delivers.
And, if you want prepackaged sliced carrots for whatever reason, just search for Rachel Ray recipes.
I'm suggesting (as Parsnip seems to agree) that they target people who want to cook food to eat, not just people who want to cook food to demonstrate. People who get delivery 80% of the time and cook on lazy Sundays and for dates are what most food media appeals to. It'd be easier to learn to cook with unedited video of an operating church kitchen over two days than with 48 hours of Food Network programming.