The History Channel Sucks!

topic posted Sat, July 15, 2006 - 9:38 PM by 
I used to be a History Channel addict, but now I rarely see anything worth watching. Tonight, they showed "The Road Warrior." This is history? There are still some good History Channel programs, but they're all re-runs and they're on the second cable channel (HIST-I, #276 on my Comcast cable). What happened to these guys?
posted by:
  • Unsu...
    I happen to agree...there used to be a program where they showed a film and then had experts talk about what was fiction and what really happened during that time frame. I saw a great miniseries that way called A.D. very enlighting,the way the experts saw through the fiction that was Ancient Rome.
  • I had originally posted this in the History Channel discussion board, but had inexplicably been removed, by the moderators, a bit odd since it did not violate the community standards concerning profanities. Could it be that THC doesn't handle criticisms too well? I'm hoping this post has a longer life expectancy here.

    I feel that when a station that claims to specialize in history has resorted to UFOs, Ghosts, pseudo history like the DaVinci Code, Road Warriors, etc, it has jumped the shark as the saying goes. Its Eurocentric approach to historic methodology has become quite annoying over the years, particularly when dealing with the Roman Empire and its excessive programmings about military history. There's more to history than this channel's limited grasp of this particular academic discipline, such as social history, literary history, etc. By the way mundane and trivial subjects such as history of the hot dog bun is just utter silliness par-excellence.

    Its subtle anti-French bias is another annoying aspect about this station, showing only French defeats throughout the country's long history as though to pander to the typical American viewer's francophobic ignorance. This channel's understanding of the Napoleonic Wars seems only limited in scope to Waterloo, the Crimean War was only a British War, nevermind that the French were more sucessful at the charge in Balaclava and it was they who covered the British retreat. The Huns and the Mongols are now apparently White, or so atleast in accordance with this station's portrayals of them.

    Its recent specials about the American Revolution downplayed the French contribution to the point that it appears George Washington now defeated the British all by himself with one hand tied behind his back.
    Apparently according to the history channel, the Roman Empire was alone in greatness and acheivements, since apparently if this channel is to be believed, an equally sophisticated yet no less greater empire in the East, China, didn't exist. Apparently only Hadrian's Wall was the greatest engineering achievement of the ancient world, nevermind the Great Wall of China.

    But the biggest garbage this channel has produced in recent memory has got to be UFOs in the bible. Presenting unsubstantiated theory and conjecture and trying to pass them off as 'history.' This channel has turned into a joke over the years and find myself skipping over it in disgust while flipping channels looking for a decent program to watch.
    • What we get on the History Channel is not history as it is known to historians, but mainly the "best bits" version of history . . . And all sorts of garbage which doesn't merit being called "history" at all is thrown in to boost ratings . . .

      It's not like there's any lack of good material . . . if you've spent any time in Europe, you've seen what kind of documentaries regularly appear on the TV channels there . . .

      Ironically, HBO has had a really excellent dramatization of the the early history of the Roman Empire which is based closely on Caesar, Plutarch and Suetonius, and much better than most of the junk on the History Channel . . .
      • The History Channel in a way is just like any other network in that its programmings are aimed towards the lowest common denominator, and not academics.
        PBS actually produces better quality history programmings. Past history programs on PBS like The Great War and Napoleon were much more superior. It has a bit of everything for everyone, military history, social history, ethnic history, literary history, PBS encompasses a broader range of the subject of history than History Channel does.
        Ocassionally The history channel will produce shows that seem halfway decent, but after you've watched it, you feel that it not only insulted your intelligence, but butchered the subject matter in the cheap and degrading way it was presented. just to gain ratings. I'm talking about the History Channel's production of 'Land of the Tsars awhile back, and the French Revolution. With such phrases anouncing that Catherine the Great was a 'Harlot' and "For two hours it wont kill you to love the French" leads one to believe that History Channel's target audience are the sleazy Jerry Springer crowd and ignorant neo-conservative 'freedom fries' francophobic morons who have never opened a book in their lives.
        • I agree completely with John's sentiments, and others in this thread. Even many years ago, when I was teaching history at a local university, my fellow historians referred to the History Channel as "the World War II Channel," or "the Civil War Channel," or, for short, just "the War Channel."

          Now that the UFOs have invaded, it's really time to go back to PBS.
  • TV sucks, dude. I sat and watched a few minutes of a science show on how the sub was going to explode and make the earth very hot, then, the same show's next episode was on the coming ice age. I can only conclude TV is made for retarded people who have short attention spans.

    Then, I flipped the channel to "sex and the city" which seems to be some kind of advertisement for finding happiness through catching VD and buying shoes. Oddly, it was much more highbrow than the climate show.

    Anyway, read a book; you'll be happier.

    • That has been my take. I have essentially stopped watching TV unless I want to be treated to something idiotic (it is sometimes quite therapeutic). I have started reading more, got caught up on my subscriptions, and I am even diving into some deeper fair that I have always wanted to read but was always afraid to strain a muscle while lifting the book.
  • That's why it's called the "Hitler Channel" and night, 24 hours of World War 2. Why don't they cut it out? "History of the SS", "History of the SD", "Hitler and the Occult". "Hitler and the One Testicle"(lol), WHO THE HELL CARES???

    Why not show a movie like Omar Sharif's GENGHIS KHAN(I think made in 1966). Their CROSS AND CRESCENT*(*although istorically innnacurate, the "Crescent" was a symbol of the Osman Dynasty, the Ottoman Empire, Islam forbids symbols), and THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE...they were good. Then it's back to Amazing Machines and World War 2.

    I know alot of people who call the History Channel the "Hitler Channel" for its obscession with World War 2.
    • Unsu...
      There is also the millions of feet of nearly free film. get your self a voice over and an editing program and poof you have a show. If you show a movie your gonna have to pay residules.

Recent topics in "Armchair Historians"