Jow said:
Actually they do sell what they offer...remember the programs are not the products, we, as viewers, are the products they are selling to other companies with ads. I doubt that this kind of programming is harmful. It definitely isn't helping get rid of misconceptions but I don't think it is making things any worse than they already are. If you are going to change the name of the History channel because it sells nonsense then you should change the name of Forever 21 because it is not in fact the fountain of youth. I am not defending the History channel I just don't think that this is that big of an issue.
This type of thinking is, I think, grossly academic. I understand the idea of taking an objective view of things, and certainly your points are valid, but I think they miss the point.
Most of us aren't upset that channels can and do put up this drivel. I personally understand that they air this stuff because people watch it and that's how they stay on the air, but I also don't have a problem with
that. What I do have an issue with is, as others have said, the fact that they call themselves the "History" channel, or "The Learning Channel". The other poster was obviously saying that the History channel (and the ilk) are not giving viewers that which it's name totes, history.
Whether or not that sells ads is irrelevant to the viewer.
Obviously the Science Channel couldn't survive airing live biopsies and titration experiments, but if it's calling itself the Science Channel, it should deliver some
actual science content or else change it's name. I bet a big part of the reason why many people are so distrustful (and ignorant) of the scientific method is that channels like the ones we are discussing depict scientific inquiry as mere speculation.