The History Channel is really starting to grate on me...

[bigred]

I love history. And I have enjoyed many of the shows they have had - at least in theory. :mad: But along with hopping on the bandwagon of having advertising on screen WHILE THE @#%! SHOW IS PLAYING and almost non-stop (whoever came up w/this idea should be slowly burned at the stake), they also seem to be getting more and more into this "MTV mentality" of having images on the screen flick by you at tinier and tinier intervals....ie someone is talking and quickly the y*FLICK* to another image - for all of half a second - then *FLICK* to something else...and....

*FLICK* something else
*FLICK* something else
*FLICK*
*FLICK*
*FLICK*

:mgbanghead

One of the last channels on TV that I liked, that I thought was sane, is proving me wrong in a maddeningly gradual way. It's insidiously irritating.

/rant

[JohnG]

Yes, and on the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth, what's their major offering? A sensationalistic show chock full of cheesy CGI called Stealing Lincoln's Body.

The History Channel continues its slow but continuous descent into utter banality and irrelevance. It is very sad.

At least we still have PBS, but even it isn't immune from the dumbed down, lowest common denominator programming, as evidenced whenever there's a pledge drive.

[arthwollipot]

You guys should all move to Australia. We get the real History Channel here - the one with the programmes that are actually about history.

[Ove]

We got the REAL one too. It must be a specially adapted American channel you guys have. ;)

[Aitch]

Be glad you haven't got UKTV History* - WWII plus the odd episode of Antiques Roadshow. :covereyes

* aka UKTV Hitler

[tomwaits]

The Military History channel (the one associated with History channel, NOT the Military channel) is quite good, but there aren't too many cable services that get it.

[bigred]

Yes, and on the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth, what's their major offering? A sensationalistic show chock full of cheesy CGI called Stealing Lincoln's Body.

The History Channel continues its slow but continuous descent into utter banality and irrelevance. It is very sad.

At least we still have PBS, but even it isn't immune from the dumbed down, lowest common denominator programming, as evidenced whenever there's a pledge drive.
If you want ratings nowdays you gotta keep dumbing down, since that's what our society is doing.

Re the Military Channel, actually they have had the occasional history show that was good (eg the Hitler bodyguard stuff).

[tomwaits]

Also, History International is still pretty good.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Be glad you haven't got UKTV History* - WWII plus the odd episode of Antiques Roadshow. :covereyes

* aka UKTV Hitler

It's not all bad, they do show Poldark reruns as well :)

[Magyar]

I thought the show about jesus's years in Egypt was really very good though










Yea that was sarcasm - in case you're wondering

[Bikewer]

Certainly a mixed bag. When I first started watching History, they had a lot of WWII stuff on that was quite good. Information on campaigns and battles I'd never heard of, even though I'd read tons on that conflict.
The "dogfights" series was terrific, with accounts from actual pilots and re-creations of their engagements.

Now we have "Ancient Discoveries" which tends to be rather .....Speculative at best.

We get The Military Channel here, but not the Military History channel. Military has occasional good shows, but apparently suffers from a limited budget; you don't get much in the way of new programming.

[arthwollipot]

Also, History International is still pretty good.Apparently that's what we get as the History Channel.

[Geek Goddess]

It's turned into the Hitler'sHenchmenUFOMysteriesStalkingTheDaVinciCode .

Last week they had a guy explaining, in detail, how the Tunguska Event might have been a crashed alien spacecraft. I can barely watch it any more.


I have to wonder about these aliens, flying hundreds and thousands of lightyears and then crashing when they get here. Stoopid.

[NorfolkAtheist]

Never been a viewer of the channel myself. Flipping past it I've never seen a program covering anything other than WWII or Jesus.

But...One time I saw a History Channel DVD called "Ape To Man" and it was pretty well done.

[hgc]

The History Channel is pure junk, and it has been for a long time. Even when they show an actual, straightforward history show, it might* be riddled with errors. High stinkin' cheese.

* Occassionally, there will be a well-made program appearing. (Hero of Alexandria)

[steve s]

I think The Universe series is on THC. So they occasionally do have good shows on. But I agree that there's way too much woo for a channel that prides itself on being educational.

History International is generally better about it's content. The quality on the Military Channel can be a mixed bag. Some shows are very good, but the research on a few shows has been terrible. I was watching one show about the development of the Me262 jet fighter, and they kept showing footage of the Me163 Komet rocket-propelled plane. They look nothing alike,and they couldn't tell the difference it makes me wonder what else they're getting wrong. On another show about the Me109, they kept showing shots of the FW190.

The Science Channel has my favorite channel to watch. As soon as I turn the TV on, I go straight to it to see what's on.

Steve S.

[Travis]

The problems with the History Channel started when they got ratings hungry. They used to be content with a small ratings share and had standards, like only having shows about actual history, and then that all went by the wayside when someone decided they needed a bigger viewing audience. Then we started getting shows like Ice Road Truckers, Monsterquest and UFO Hunters who's relationship to history is......tangential at best. There are as many history fans now as there used to be, so it's not a case of the public being dumbed down, it's a case of the executives deciding those history fans no longer warrant dedicated broadcasting.

I blame the Discovery associated Military Channel for this. It cut into the viewing audience of The History Channel just enough to get people in charge scared and that's when the changes started to give it broader appeal.

[bigred]

Funny you mentioned Discovery, as they led the way for a channel that went from quality "niche" programming (scientific) to "whatever." I think they have more legal/cop crap shows on now than anything else.

But anyway, I think my orig point was lost - it's not the content that is annoying me so much, it's the style.

[hgc]

The problems with the History Channel started when they got ratings hungry. They used to be content with a small ratings share and had standards, like only having shows about actual history, and then that all went by the wayside when someone decided they needed a bigger viewing audience. Then we started getting shows like Ice Road Truckers, Monsterquest and UFO Hunters who's relationship to history is......tangential at best. There are as many history fans now as there used to be, so it's not a case of the public being dumbed down, it's a case of the executives deciding those history fans no longer warrant dedicated broadcasting.

I blame the Discovery associated Military Channel for this. It cut into the viewing audience of The History Channel just enough to get people in charge scared and that's when the changes started to give it broader appeal.


It's not just about the number of viewers that TV shows can attract, but the quality of that audience. The best quality audience from most advertisers' point of view are the non-skeptical types. So as the pressure to increase profitability builds on the owners of these outlets, the race to the least common denominator intensifies.

Good god, remember what A&E was like in the time before? Before "Biography" started featuring under-30 or washed-out entertainment celebrities, complete with maudlin, tinkling piano. Food Network too.

[arthwollipot]

Ice Road Truckers, Monsterquest and UFO HuntersSee, they're not on our History Channel. They're on Discovery.

ETA: And John Edward and James Van Praagh are on W.

[Miss_Kitt]

Just got done watching a fairly interesting--and even informative--show on Rogue Waves on the History Channel. They also have a new series on the history of the Earth that looked decent, based upon the bit on the Marianas Trench that we watched.

I concur with the OP on the constant on-screen ads, though. Maybe if we organize a campaign? I mean, there's no reason to do that at all! How many people today LACK the ability to get an on-screen guide if they want to know what's coming up next?!

[JohnG]

I think The Universe series is on THC. So they occasionally do have good shows on. But I agree that there's way too much woo for a channel that prides itself on being educational.


I had high hopes for the show when I first heard about it, but whenever I'd happen across actual episodes, the theme always seemed to be "here's an amazing astronomical phenomenon and here's how it could be a danger to the planet Earth".

Let's just say it was no Cosmos.

[UnrepentantSinner]

But...One time I saw a History Channel DVD called "Ape To Man" and it was pretty well done.

Which, interestingly enough, first aired on A&E.

[Lucian]

The History Channel is pure junk, and it has been for a long time. Even when they show an actual, straightforward history show, it might* be riddled with errors. High stinkin' cheese.

* Occassionally, there will be a well-made program appearing. (Hero of Alexandria)

I agree that history programs on both the History Channel and History International have been of dubious quality and accuracy for some time. Whenever I have watched a History Channel program related to my area (the Middle Ages), I have been extremely disappointed and often apoplectic with rage. Sometimes they have perfectly respectable scholars, but reduce them to sound bites or shape what they say through creative editing.

For instance, History International produced a show called "Unconventional Warfare," or something (the program has also been shown on History). The idea was to discuss a strategy or tactic or something used by an ancient, medieval or early modern army and compare it to a modern equivalent. There was a segment on berserks. This is a difficult subject anyway, since a lot of information on berserks comes from sagas, not the most historically accurate source. Often the berserks are shape-shifters or they are simply arrogant, bullying foils for the protagonist to humiliate and/or kill.

At any rate, they interviewed several very highly respected scholars. At one point one of them (I don't remember which) said something like, "Well, some people believe that they used hallucinogenic mushrooms...." It's clear this statement was originally followed by the word "but," as in "but there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that; it's just something some guy came up with in the eighteenth century." However the basis of comparison between the berserks and the modern equivalent was mind-altering substances, so they edited out the "but" and ran with the magic-mushroom hypothesis.

[Travis]

Funny you mentioned Discovery, as they led the way for a channel that went from quality "niche" programming (scientific) to "whatever." I think they have more legal/cop crap shows on now than anything else.

But anyway, I think my orig point was lost - it's not the content that is annoying me so much, it's the style.

Discovery still has some nice shows, like Mythbusters, so there is some reason to watch it. I do not care for Deadliest Catch or Dirty Jobs though.

Good god, remember what A&E was like in the time before? Before "Biography" started featuring under-30 or washed-out entertainment celebrities, complete with maudlin, tinkling piano. Food Network too.

Now you got me all nostalgic.

Which, interestingly enough, first aired on A&E.

Not surprising since A&E owns The History Channel.

[lionking]

You guys should all move to Australia. We get the real History Channel here - the one with the programmes that are actually about history.

Um, they did show "Loose Change", and many other woo "documentaries". I once nominated this channel for the Aussie Skeptics "Bent Spoon Award".

But, in general, you are right. A bit too fixated on WWII though.

[Blackadder]

Join the torrent community, it's the only realistic option you have if your country that is still the largest economy in the world fails to deliver even 1 single watchable tv channel. + as added bonus: no commercials...

[Radrook]

I once watched a History Channel documentary about the Taino Indians of the Caribean islands. They were all depicted as black Africans. That's tantamount to making a documentary about Ireland's orignal inhabitants and depicting them as Chinese.


BTW

It isn't just the history channel that's going to the dogs.

I recently watched an on demand film an it was interrupted approx. six or seven times with the identical commercial. In short, after seeing the first commercial I had to fast forward five or six times in order to resume. Why they feel that they will persuade me to buy something by showing it to me seven times via interrupting a film I'm interested in watching is beyond me. Obviously it doesn't occur to them that after the second interruption I'm fuming. This wasn't initially the case. At first all films were either commercial free or almost totally commercial free. But now one can never be sure. I guess the add money is just too tempting for them to pass up.

[Safe-Keeper]

Why do you all talk this way? You sound like fags:rolleyes:!

[/reference to certain movie;)]

[JohnG]

Idiocracy?

[Safe-Keeper]

Dee dee dee dee dee dee dee!

;)

[bigred]

Biography was great when it first came out ie back in the Peter Graves days.

[Cicero]

Biography was great when it first came out ie back in the Peter Graves days.

The original 1960's TV show "Biography" with Mike Wallace as narrator was far superior to the A&E shows that features biographies of twentysomething inane celebs. Ridiculous.

[TX50]

I agree that history programs on both the History Channel and History International have been of dubious quality and accuracy for some time. Whenever I have watched a History Channel program related to my area (the Middle Ages), I have been extremely disappointed and often apoplectic with rage. Sometimes they have perfectly respectable scholars, but reduce them to sound bites or shape what they say through creative editing.


I hate the way many of the "experts" are nothing of the kind too. So, for
example, we get the likes of Tom Clancy talking uninformed rubbish and
perpetuating myths about British service rifles, and "military historians" and
journalists holding forth on what it's like to be in battle (when you can tell
right away that they've never seen an angry man in their lives).

Another poster mentioned poor research in a WW2 documentary. I see
quite frequently that film producers use any old film regardless of time and
theatre. So for example you'll see gun camera footage of an FW190 being
clobbered (that famous clip where you see the German pilot bale out) used
to illustrate the "Battle of Britain", and any old film of German infantry used
to illustrate any campaign. For example, I recently saw a documentary
about "Barbarossa" use film of Tiger tanks and the famous footage of SS
troopers beside KO'd allied vehicles taken during the "Battle of the Bulge".

I don't know if it's for lack of material (I rather doubt that, actually), or
difficulty of access thereto, or just lazy research (although that sort of
information is trivially easy to find nowadays).

[Cicero]

I don't know if it's for lack of material (I rather doubt that, actually), or
difficulty of access thereto, or just lazy research (although that sort of
information is trivially easy to find nowadays).

Well, even the acclaimed (and still the best) 1973 British produced "World At War" series included archival film that was not necessarily germane to what Lord Laurence Olivier was narrating.

[dudalb]

The problems with the History Channel started when they got ratings hungry. They used to be content with a small ratings share and had standards, like only having shows about actual history, and then that all went by the wayside when someone decided they needed a bigger viewing audience. Then we started getting shows like Ice Road Truckers, Monsterquest and UFO Hunters who's relationship to history is......tangential at best. There are as many history fans now as there used to be, so it's not a case of the public being dumbed down, it's a case of the executives deciding those history fans no longer warrant dedicated broadcasting.

I blame the Discovery associated Military Channel for this. It cut into the viewing audience of The History Channel just enough to get people in charge scared and that's when the changes started to give it broader appeal.

Dead on.
One of the shows you mentioned...Ice Road Truckers...I actually rather liked, but is has nothing to do with history.

[gumboot]

The History Channel is crap. We get the International one here. As Lionking pointed out, they have broadcast numerous complete garbage 9/11 Conspiracy Theory films, which immediately leads me to questioning their authenticity.

I don't have pay TV, but my friend knew I liked history documentaries, particularly ancient/medieval history, so he used to record shows for me and then give them to me to watch. He stopped doing this after a month or so because every single show he taped was complete garbage.

If I see one more history show where the dramatic narrator and the expensive reenactments show exactly the opposite of what the historians are saying, I am going to scream.

[Morrigan]

Hey, I enjoyed those Engineering an Empire episodes with Peter Weller. :(

[Floyt]

From the few instances where I'm actually able to catch them out, I wonder how much random "looks vaguely similar" footage is being used in documentaries to illustrate the narrative.
I'm working my way through Frontier of Dreams at the Uni library, a miniseries about New Zealand history (though as we are already at the Musket Wars in installment 3, I wonder how they are going to fill 24 of them). When talking about an inviting landing beach the Maori "mined" with buried piles, we get shown a mudflat with mangrove saplings poking out. Just after, when it's about a mere pounamu (made of jade), one made of bone is being waved - on sites that are supposed to be Bay of Islands but are obviously Marlborough Sounds.
Sure, makes no real difference - but stuff like that does erode my trust :|

[hgc]

From the few instances where I'm actually able to catch them out, I wonder how much random "looks vaguely similar" footage is being used in documentaries to illustrate the narrative.
I'm working my way through Frontier of Dreams at the Uni library, a miniseries about New Zealand history (though as we are already at the Musket Wars in installment 3, I wonder how they are going to fill 24 of them). When talking about an inviting landing beach the Maori "mined" with buried piles, we get shown a mudflat with mangrove saplings poking out. Just after, when it's about a mere pounamu (made of jade), one made of bone is being waved - on sites that are supposed to be Bay of Islands but are obviously Marlborough Sounds.
Sure, makes no real difference - but stuff like that does erode my trust :|


It makes a difference. If they're telling you one thing, and showing you something else entirely, that's just bad, wrong information. It's unacceptable. They're cheap and lazy corner-cutters, and viewers are getting chintzy product because of it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

My fellow Americans, they still run a lot of real history stuff in the mornings. Thankfully their "cable in the classroom" contributions are good and, from the ones I've seen over the last 5-7 years, aren't infected with woo yet. On weekends in the mornings they re-run Wild West Tech and this morning I watched a great Modern Marvels about the AlCan highway.

Battles B.C. seems promising. One of the talking heads is the Canadian military historian I really enjoyed in Last Stand of the 300.

[Wildy]

You guys should all move to Australia. We get the real History Channel here - the one with the programmes that are actually about history.

I sort of stopped watching the History Channel because of all the Hitler. I started to get sick of it, it was as if they deliberately found an excuse to show a picture of Hitler.

Although, if I found it I would watch Cities of the Underworld.

See, they're not on our History Channel. They're on Discovery.

ETA: And John Edward and James Van Praagh are on W.

And Sylvia Browne.

Have you noticed that CI has quite a few ads for W and W (I find myself watching it because they show the regular Law and Order) has quite a few ads for CI?

And just because it's a tenuous link:

IiDKvR3IBvs

[davefoc]

I thought the show about jesus's years in Egypt was really very good though










Yea that was sarcasm - in case you're wondering

Well, you had me going.

[bigred]

My fellow Americans, they still run a lot of real history stuff in the mornings. Thankfully their "cable in the classroom" contributions are good
I've enjoyed those too.

[Brainster]

You guys should all move to Australia. We get the real History Channel here - the one with the programmes that are actually about history.

Like Loose Change?

T4tB1813uds

:D

[arthwollipot]

Like Loose Change?Yeah well of course there's going to be exceptions. I didn't see it when it came up on the listing - whenever that was - so I didn't know that the History Channel carried it.