The History Channel...

M

mus

Has the History Channel completely given up on teaching history?

(This is only a minor rant)

Not to offend any religious folks out there, but a miniseries about the Bible is not history.

Neither is “Ax Men” "Ice Road Truckers” “Extreme Marksmen” “MonsterQuest” “Apocalypse Man” "Swamp People" "American Pickers" "Pawn Stars" as well as any others I don't know about

(I believe Ancient Aliens fits in there somewhere, but at least the theory takes place in ancient times...)


They're goin down the MTV road.... no longer does it play music.... soon BET won't allow black people on it...


Why is every Network following the annoying trend of reality shows? Is there any of them out there with some dignity?
 
Maybe they should one day do a documentary on the historical time period in which The History Channel was nothing but history.
 
Oh my god... I literally just now learned about "Only in America with Larry the Cable Guy."

Seriously??
 
mussonman said:
Has the History Channel completely given up on teaching history?
Click to expand...

It may have been the creator's concept to create a channel which could turn a profit from teaching history but as the History Channel is part of a large international corporation, turning a profit ultimately comes into conflict with "teaching history" and which do you think wins out?

Wall Street and parent companies do not want to see stagnation, they want to see growth. There's many ways for a TV broadcaster to increase it's profitability but the 3 main ones are, increase the number of it's viewers (thereby increasing advertising revenue), reduce it's costs and syndication. As to the last, I believe History Channel is more of a buyer of content than a seller. Reducing costs is problematic as it ultimately reduces content quality and looses rather than gains viewers. The solution adopted by many channels of this type is to reduce costs and aim for more viewers through entertainment value alone with every other consideration being secondary. The result is an increasingly tenuous link between what the History Channel implies it is selling and what it is actually selling.

mussonman said:
Why is every Network following the annoying trend of reality shows? Is there any of them out there with some dignity?
Click to expand...

Creating a good history documentary (for example) which both educates and entertains is a difficult, time consuming, highly skilled and relatively expensive endeavour. Creating an entire documentary series is many times more difficult and expensive and may take years to make. Relatively speaking, reality series are massively quicker from concept to broadcast and both easier and cheaper to make. This represents a double whammy, not only more ROI but also far quicker ROI. I'm not sure how replacing good docos with reality shows affects viewer numbers but even if viewer numbers stagnate or reduce slightly the double ROI whammy still improves bottom line profitability.

As for dignity, if the History channel does not demonstrate enough growth or demonstrates too much of a loss to it's parent company, the CEO and other board directors will likely find themselves booted out. This loss of income (and dignity) for the board of directors personally appears to easily trump the loss of dignity/integrity of the channel itself. Especially as this loss of the channel's dignity can be mitigated to a certain extent and relatively cheaply, with a bit of marketing spin.

G
 
Last edited:
People Deserve the Government they Elect (to Tolerate!)

A. FWIW, I remember when CNN broadcast actual news-news, and it was solid, robust reporting.
It quickly became "the standard" by which national and local news could be measured by.
Now... the puerile public's attention and economic demand for candy/opinion coated juvenile gameshow news from Fox Network has pulled so many advertising dollars away from CNN that it has forced CNN to adopt tactics so similar as to make the two (functionally) indistinguishable.

news1_xlarge.jpeg



B. It's becawz peple r becomin stupider, i beleeve.
Not only do the vast majority of faux-news consumers ENJOY being told what opinions to have, but they're also so overstimulated with the mind-boggling complexities of modern life that they kinda sorta NEED someone to interpret the already filtered news.
More documentation of the world + same brain size = too much sh!t in the cr@pper.
http://pinterest.com/wandawood/omgosh-wth-are-they-thinking/

IMHO, uv coarse. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
AudioPostExpert said:
It may have been the creator's concept to create a channel which could turn a profit from teaching history but as the History Channel is part of a large international corporation, turning a profit ultimately comes into conflict with "teaching history" and which do you think wins out?
Click to expand...

But how long did they get by with just historical documentaries? I don't think the audience they had back then ("In Yonder Good Ol' Days") has left... I know reality shows are cheap to produce, but most of their documentaries probably were around the same budget.
 
Ya know, I don't even mind the pseudo-historical documentaries they have... Ancient Aliens is great if you pretend that it's a fake documentary meant for the Expanded Universe of Stargate or Star Trek or something....

The History Channel NEEDS History... otherwise it should just be called "The Channel"
 
mussonman said:
But how long did they get by with just historical documentaries? I don't think the audience they had back then ("In Yonder Good Ol' Days") has left... I know reality shows are cheap to produce, but most of their documentaries probably were around the same budget.
Click to expand...

Possibly, it depends. The problem I mentioned is the second part of my post needs to be considered though. After decades of historical docos it is increasingly more difficult to come up with schedule filling documentary series with a subject matter to attract wide audiences and a documentary series takes far longer to make and is generally more expensive than a reality series.

mussonman said:
The History Channel NEEDS History... otherwise it should just be called "The Channel"
Click to expand...

It seems to me that more and more the "History" part of the channel name is marketing rather than an absolute description of content!

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
Possibly, it depends. The problem I mentioned is the second part of my post needs to be considered though. After decades of historical docos it is increasingly more difficult to come up with schedule filling documentary series with a subject matter to attract wide audiences and a documentary series takes far longer to make and is generally more expensive than a reality series.



It seems to me that more and more the "History" part of the channel name is marketing rather than an absolute description of content!

G
Click to expand...

I'm proud of them for that Vikings miniseries they have, but the Bible one? (We don't need a second rant here)

Hopefully they'll start doing more things like that.... Personally, I'd like to see one taking place in the third crusade.
 
The Bible, whether you agree with it or not, is the most significant historical piece of writing. That book has literally shaped the world in which we live. If you cannot understand how the Bible relates to history then I'm afraid all is lost.
 
DeJager said:
That book has literally shaped the world in which we live.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Even if you think of the Bible as pure fiction it is history. It has
shaped storytelling, it has influenced world leaders and the general
population, it has impacted governments and even countries.

Even this version which just tells the stories in the Bible and doesn't
put them in any historical context demonstrated the power of its
historical significance to storytelling - the creation myth, the hero's
journey, various incarnations of good vs. evil, the small overcoming the
large, the difficult choices we must face and make, how we explain the
unexplainable, how we make laws, how we treat each other both well
and ill. All that is history of man. Even if one believe all the stories
are complete fiction.
 
I remember when MTV showed music videos.. do they ever do that anymore.. ??

Ape nailed it. Media conglomerates maximize return and spread risk... Brazilian Women's Prison is a sure hit with little risk.
 
History Channel is out to make a profit and they give the consumer what they want.

Remember back in the 90's? It was pretty much the Hilter Channel. Now folks want reality shows and supernatural stuff, so we get 24/7 Ancient Aliens and Storage Wars.
 
In response to Rayw

step back, CNN was never a middle of the road network. Ted, married to Jane Fonda, hardly a right wing darling. Ted, via Time Warner tried to take over the internet by the AOL \ Time Warner merger, luckily they were stupid and the AOL guy was off loading a dead horse (AOL saw the writing on the wall that showed there was no chance they could control what users saw on the soon to boom internet, much less drive users to the Time Warner products which was the whole point behind the merger) Anyway, CNN was always a bastion for left wing propagandist bent on media\information monopoly thereby controlling speech!

.. so there.. not saying Fox is any better by the way..

FWIW: While in high school I was paid a few bucks while in drafting class to draw a handfull of corrections on blueprints that eventually became the Close Captioning system used on CNN. I was exploited by the man! lol.
 
DeJager said:
If you cannot understand how the Bible relates to history then I'm afraid all is lost.
Click to expand...

I guess it's fitting to this current version of The History Channel


"We air stuff that relates to history."


If it were explaining the history of the Bible, rather than what they're doing, it would make sense.

But I guess they've done that before, because I remember seeing documentaries on the bible, as well as the development/evolution of religion.
 
Dreadylocks said:
History Channel is out to make a profit and they give the consumer what they want.

Remember back in the 90's? It was pretty much the Hilter Channel. Now folks want reality shows and supernatural stuff, so we get 24/7 Ancient Aliens and Storage Wars.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Hitler channel.... Hitler's childhood, Hitler's strategies, Hitler's religion, Hitler's demise, Hitler's favorite Baskin Robbins flavor....


If they can milk one subject so long, they oughta do it with others... More knowledge is never a bad thing.
 
Ray, I don't agree with that infographic, regarding the relative status of a "news" station, along the conservative/liberal spectrum. From the perspective of a full-blown liberal, the vast majority of national news outlets are too far right. The way I see it, MSNBC is the only one speaking the truth, but the difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that the viewers of MSNBC are not afraid to admit that it has a very obvious liberal bias, whereas viewers of Fox actually think it is "fair and balanced".

As for the rest of 'em -- honestly, I think they're too conservative. But that's just because I'm an unapologetic bleeding-heart liberal. It doesn't surprise me that ultra-conservatives think that most news stations are too liberal. So, what's the logical conclusion? Most news outlets are actually REALLY centrist. So much so that they don't want to offend anyone, by actually reporting any real news.

Nope, all they care about is selling advertising, and to that end, it helps if you appeal to the masses. Fox and MSNBC serve a niche, the rest of the news stations serve the middle-ground.

And yes, DeJager, the Bible is an historical document, but only the Old Testament, and only certain parts of it. Just cuz it's influential don't make it history. Sheeeiiiit, the History Channel might as well start running shows about an empire that existed a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top