history channel woes...

[OMGturt1es]

so yeah, having crawled out from my blanket cacoon this afternoon, i found nothing of particular interest on the science channel, and discovery times was rerunning some prorgram that i'd previously seen, so i flipped to the 'ol history channel...

it was a mistake. the history channel was running some crapumentry "decoding the past" dealing with "bible code". it was completely sensational, with profound sounding music and serious sounding narration. suffice to say, "bible code" was not investigated, it was endorsed. by the end of the show, the main question seemed to be not "is bible code valid?", rather "what implications does bible code have on our lives?"

moreover, the next two shows coming up are two more "decoding the past" episodes, one dealing with the shroud of turin, and the other dealing with biblical mysteries.

did anyone happen to catch this? are the next two shows just as bad? (i'm not going to find out; i'd rather do something else... like nothing)

is it just me, or is the history channel really going down hill?

[Bikewer]

Notice the other thread, "my letter to the History channel"..... Dunno if a letter-writing campaign will help, but it can't hurt.

[grayman]

[QUOTE is it just me, or is the history channel really going down hill?[/QUOTE]

A lot of the channels worth watching sometimes have to stoop this low in order to entice viewers and therefor, advertising dollars. That's just the way it is.

[Dark Jaguar]

Couldn't hurt to find out why that's "the way it is" or maybe a method to avoid this sort of thing. I call it the intertron, and every now and then I find web sites that never seem to need to stoop so low. I'm at one right now!

[pchams]

Well, they have to have some content in between the numerous 'Q-Ray' ads. :mad:
They ignored my letter protesting that.

[Bikewer]

Here's the sort-of-form-letter response in regard to my letter:

Dear Mr. Werner,

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding programming on The History
Channel. We take particular pride in our programming and were
disappointed
to learn that you were unhappy with the content of PSYCHIC HISTORY.

The decision to air a particular program is a long and arduous task,
through which we attempt to appeal to a broad audience. Though it is
our
intent to elicit a positive reaction from our viewers, it is impossible
to
appeal to everyone at all times.

It is important to us to receive feedback from our viewers, and we
appreciate your taking the time to contact us.

Cordially,
Viewer Relations

[Corpse Cruncher]

Don't hurt me!

I like the history channel. It makes me laugh at times, other times makes me think, about lunch. Even with the drivel it sometimes has on it, as with other channels; it does make me think about how tainted history is and the trends of fashionable history that flow.

It makes me sad and I'll now cry.

[Sandy M]

...not to mention how annoyed I get everytime its affiliate, The Learning Channel (LEARNING????) runs that biography of the South American "Psychic Surgeon,"... I think, John of God? Repeatedly.

[Kiwiwriter]

I wrote a column on their ineptitude with the Kennedy assassination on my web page, how they put out a show on a silly conspiracy theory as if it was fact, and had to admit they were wrong.

It's at http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com

I think it's called "The History Channel Fails."

[hgc]

Here's the sort-of-form-letter response in regard to my letter:

Dear Mr. Werner,

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding programming on The History Channel. We take particular pride in our programming and were disappointed to learn that you were unhappy with the content of PSYCHIC HISTORY.

The decision to air a particular program is a long and arduous task, through which we attempt to appeal to a broad audience. Though it is our intent to elicit a positive reaction from our viewers, it is impossible to appeal to everyone at all times.

It is important to us to receive feedback from our viewers, and we appreciate your taking the time to contact us.

Cordially,
Viewer RelationsNote that they come close to admitting what we knew already. They decision is based strictly on maximum viewership (with presumed complexity related to specifically targeted audience). No standards for factual integrity need apply. What does the individual viewer like Bikewer care about their economics? If you care about the quality of programming, vis-á-vis historical scholarship, then screw you.

[Dark Jaguar]

Remember when The LEARNING Channel and the Discovery Channel were actually about science? Now it seems they have become basically Reality TV networks. "American Chopper" blah blah blah "A Wedding Story" yadda yadda, "Some sort of weird secret decorating contest" I just don't care (though I saw one episode of the secret decorating contest where they took a guy's CD collection and GLUED IT TO THE WALL as a sort of post modern art piece, which if they ever did that to my game collection there would be BLOOD).

[Ohmer]

I watch the history channel a lot. There are a few gems and some really ridiculous crap. I can usually spot the crap before I start watching. I got burned recently watching “Lost Worlds”. It could had been an interesting study of early civilization. It ended up being Atlantis style woo crap. I got in trouble with the Mrs. for screaming at the moron on screen. He was actually saying that the pyramids of Giza appeared suddenly in history without anything else like them before. They couldn’t possibly have been built by ancient Egyptians with outside help. Anyone who has actually studied pyramids for more than 15 minutes knows this is absurd. I could not believe they gave this idiot air time. I deleted the rest of the episodes from my DVR. My wife is much happier for it.

I did enjoy the special they had on Caribbean pirates. I’m also a sucker for Mail Call.

[hgc]

I watch the history channel a lot. There are a few gems ...Yes. Hats off to the series about ancient Alexandria, especially the episode about the inventor Solon (I think that was his name). I wish they'd do more of that kind of quality stuff.

Also, the early days of Biography, when they examined legitimately interesting historical figures rather than doing saccharine sop about contemporary celebrities, are to be missed.

[rats]

I made the unfortunate mistake of watching the National Geographic channel the other week, The Secret Bible, Apocalypse! I shan’t rant too much, but for a start they could have reduced that programme down to about 5 minutes without terribly portrayed “reconstructions.” I don’t watch much TV, but it was the most appalling, one-sided documentary I’ve ever seen!