Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Can't go along with your logic or your analogy. The Beatles didn't invent rock'n'roll. They were interpreting something that was already established in America--the real birthplace of blues and rock. To make your analogy work with regard to Michael Symon and Mediterranean food, you'd have to posit a Beatles group that had never heard Elvis or any American blues at all, and expect them to still be as good.

1)
I maintain that where Symon hails from is a crucial matter. Because we're talking about authenticity here. The real power these chefs have, is because they present themselves as figures of integrity and authority in a certain branch of regional food. They've trained and explored at length, in a rich local food heritage, which finds its way into their cooking. Food is culture. The way that local Spanish chefs make a meat sauce in Barcelona or the way that sushi chefs in make miso in Kyoto was the heart of the original Iron Chef show.

Else, why did the original Iron Chef Japan have each chef represent a major world cuisine? Iron Chef French, Iron Chef Italian, Iron Chef Chinese. This makes eminent sense and was a fundamental part of the program's success. This methodology provides a way to learn about food in a systematic way, rather than piecemeal.

And although it was not stated as such, this is clearly what Iron Chef America was mimicking with it's lineup. But now, they've unraveled this simple and effective arrangement--because Symon comes from the sucking void that is Cleveland, where he does his own thing--whatever that is. He hasn't traveled, but poses as an expert in Greek food. Okay, so where is the authenticity? Where is the depth? What can he transmit to us directly from the Greek food culture? You tell me. Is he capable of doing authentic dishes or just Cleveland, Ohio's version?

I mean, what is more important here? That we have a dumbed-down 'American Chef' program so that suburbanites can feel comfortable in the kitchen, or can we keep the integrity high and come to grips with the fact that the greatest cuisine in the world springs from sources outside our own country? French, Italian, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Latin--let's stop pretending these are American creations and turn to the sources. Or, if we stick to American regions, then go with Southwest, Italian, Southern, or Californian. But pray tell what can any of us learn from Cleveland?

2)
And my other point is that he is also redundant in a show with two other Mediterranean chefs. What sense does this make? Or doesn't redundancy bother anyone else but me?

3)
But I guess my beef is with the way the producers handled this whole affair. I mean, there are so many places along the way, or in the concept itself, where you can see strings being pulled and events being rigged. Someone else mentioned, for instance, that it was obvious an ethnic chef with a thick foreign accent (Chef Marou) or another female chef weren't going to be chosen, right from the start. Food for thought.

Or, how convenient was it that one chef got slammed for 'failing to salt his dish properly' when, (behind the scenes) it was an ice bath which accidentally spoiled his dish at the last minute? And then this whole thing about Ruhlman and Symon going back nine years, and Ruhlman having some kind of personal preference for the midwest? And then Ruhlman jumps on Besh because his consomme wasn't clear enough? Come on. What I'm saying is that this is hardly a realistic competition to begin with.

The competition stages are interesting (and make good television) but they shouldn't be the total criteria on which a new chef for this show was chosen. Remember that when 'The Next Food Network Host' was chosen, two finalists reach the endgame and then FoodNetwork viewers voted.
Obviously the benefit of such a scheme is that it eliminates all the chefs who actually made drastic mistakes. But to eliminate John Besh from a silly final round battle in Kitchen Stadium against Symon?

Also, I hardly think Chef Symon blew anything 'out of the water'. His dishes were sloppy and insipid where Besh's were complex and composed. There was an imbalance in the silly choice of stage-winners each time. 'For example, Symon won the 'Resource test' how? By preparing a 'family style' plate and giving each judge a glass of juice?

In my opinion, losing the 'Artistry test' so badly that it nearly eliminates you from competition is a key reason not to add a chef to a cooking *television show*. Such a show is all about artistry. A contrived reality-show 'contest' (using the word 'contest' very loosely here) shouldn't be taken so seriously that we (or FoodNetwork) forget that this is television. If they're going to carefully import Michael Symon into the program, fine. But I'm calling it a hideously bad decision, and the excuse that "well this WAS a contest" is more of a smokescreen than anything else.