History Anyone else thinks that History channel's name should be changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Julio R
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    History
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights a significant dissatisfaction with the current programming of the History Channel, which has shifted from credible historical documentaries to reality television and pseudoscience. Many viewers express frustration over the channel's misleading name, as it no longer aligns with the content being aired, such as shows like "Ancient Aliens" and other speculative programming that lacks scientific rigor. The Military Channel is mentioned as a more reliable alternative for historical content. There is a consensus that channels like the History Channel and the Science Channel prioritize entertainment over educational value, contributing to public misconceptions about history and science. This trend is seen as harmful, as it undermines the integrity of educational programming and misleads viewers seeking factual information. The conversation also touches on the broader issue of how television networks market themselves versus the actual content they provide, suggesting a need for rebranding to better reflect their programming.
Julio R
Messages
51
Reaction score
1
I ask this because of the lack of actual credible History programming, a lot of the programming now is either reality television or pseudoscience nonsense.

http://www.history.com/schedule
 
Science news on Phys.org
Possibly the BS channel. I have stopped watching anything from that venue.
 
Ancient aliens is probably the cherry on the crackpot pie. Also the whole 2012 programming. That was too far even for them. I can't believe how those shows are so popular.
 
I can't stand it, it used to be on of my favourite channels when it first came out.

Now I watch Military channel a lot, since it's basically the history channel.
 
25103267.jpg
 
Julio R said:
I can't believe how those shows are so popular.
They aren't exactly catered to the scientific community / science students though. I don't know if Through the Wormhole with the holy one Morgan Freeman is on history channel or not but that show is a good example. The stuff they say is just outright ridiculous (there was one where they just brutally butcher the equivalence principle - one of the most beautiful concepts in physics) but I'm sure to the general public it serves as very interesting stuff.
 
WannabeNewton said:
They aren't exactly catered to the scientific community / science students though. I don't know if Through the Wormhole with the holy one Morgan Freeman is on history channel or not but that show is a good example. The stuff they say is just outright ridiculous (there was one where they just brutally butcher the equivalence principle - one of the most beautiful concepts in physics) but I'm sure to the general public it serves as very interesting stuff.

I believe Through the Wormhole is on the "Science Channel" (another channel with a misleading title.) And although I'm only in high school with a strong interest for science, I have no interest in those types of fringe science/history shows. So I guess some part of the general public sees through the "interesting stuff."
 
Ya, it should be changed. It's gotten pretty horrible.

I don't think I would mind 'swamp people' or 'pawn stars' as much if they were placed on a channel that basically admitted by its name it was for pure entertainment, like maybe A&E (although the shows themselves are pretty horrible in and of themselves).

I have yet to find any show with a two worded title consisting of 1 noun and 1 adjective that is actually worth watching now that I think of it...
 
mrspudgun said:
I don't think I would mind 'swamp people' or 'pawn stars' as much if they were placed on a channel that basically admitted by its name it was for pure entertainment, like maybe A&E (although the shows themselves are pretty horrible in and of themselves).

Well A&E and History channel are sister channels, they might as well merge and just like turbo said change the name from History and A&E to B&S.
 
  • #10
You people just keep giving me excuses to show this.
 
  • #11
The "History Channel", as history, is history.
 
  • #12
AnTiFreeze3 said:
You people just keep giving me excuses to show this.

One of the comments on the video is the same as this thread. He beat me to it. Well at least others agree that the name of such channels in definitely misleading. I'll point out a few just so other students don't get misleading information. The History Channel/H2, The science channel, Nat Geo had a few 2012 programming, and PBS's NOVA is close to going down that line, I wasn't too fond on the Brian Greene documentary on string theory.
 
  • #13
A&E was originally the arts and entertainment channel for classics. It now is the Absolute & Excrutiatingly disgusting channel with such classics as

American Hoggers

Barter Kings

Gene Simmons Family Jewels

Shippng Wars

Storage Wars

Parking Wars

Hideous Houses

They used to have original movies such as

Lorna Doone

Pride and Predjudice

They were exquisite.
 
  • #14
The problem is not only the content of the channel, but the misleading title. How are fringe and plain out ridiculous interpretations of texts, artifacts, and symbols anything close to credible and provable history or science?
 
  • #15
phoenix77 said:
OH PLEASE

Where does the History Channel originate?

Bet you, it's not in the USA!

gotcha STRING THEORY FOREVER

It is Us based.

History, formerly known as The History Channel, is a US-based international satellite and cable TV channel owned by A&E Television Networks. It originally broadcast documentary programs and historical fiction series. However since 2008, it has mostly broadcast a variety of scripted "reality" television series and other nonhistory-related content.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(TV_channel)"

]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(TV_channel)[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
They had a show in which it was claimed that Einstein's Unified Field theory was used to make a destroyer ship disappear. That was the last time I ever watched the History Channel.
 
  • #17
Yes, the history channel is garbage programming. However, I still rank "the learning channel" as the worst station ever. Yes, I mean you honey boo boo.

Thanks
Matt
 
  • #18
Julio R said:
Ancient aliens is probably the cherry on the crackpot pie.

But discussion of modern aliens would violate the history theme. :confused:

They did just run a good show about Lincoln.
 
  • #19
CFDFEAGURU said:
Yes, the history channel is garbage programming. However, I still rank "the learning channel" as the worst station ever. Yes, I mean you honey boo boo.

Thanks
Matt
Oh TLC is the slime on the rocks that make the "rock bottom".
 
  • #20
Evo said:
Oh TLC is the slime on the rocks that make the "rock bottom".
Why was it called the learning channel anyways lol...well it did make me learn to appreciate my parents infinitely more for not raising me up like that poor girl
 
  • #21
Evo said:
Oh TLC is the slime on the rocks that make the "rock bottom".

At least History is sort of entertaining (I watch it for Pawn Stars, it's actually a funny program), but TLC is way too much.

History couldn't be called another way, because all the names that describe it are already used (except for maybe BS channel, I liked that)
 
  • #22
TLC was a good channel way back. They jumped the shark when they aired the show about the family with all the kids. The Goslins, I think their name was. Downhill ever since ...
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Evo said:
Oh TLC is the slime on the rocks that make the "rock bottom".

I could not agree more, Evo.
 
  • #24
Julio R said:
The problem is not only the content of the channel, but the misleading title. How are fringe and plain out ridiculous interpretations of texts, artifacts, and symbols anything close to credible and provable history or science?

Please ... you DO realize do you not that Fox "news" is called "fair and balanced" ? Clearly TV is about entertainment, not truth.
 
  • #25
phinds said:
Please ... you DO realize do you not that Fox "news" is called "fair and balanced" ? Clearly TV is about entertainment, not truth.

Well that's true, but at least some integrity would be nice. Especially for a channel that claims to be about History and another one that claims to provide "fair" news, I avoid Fox especially the O'Riley Factor.

Ivan Seeking said:
But discussion of modern aliens would violate the history theme. :confused:

Doesn't going against well known history, and adding alternative events based on speculation by vague assumptions on texts, images and other symbols violate the history theme? Well, that's just my opinion though.
 
  • #26
I've pretty much stopped watching TV altogether except for hockey. Most of it either makes me cringe or gives me a headache.
 
  • #27
Julio R said:
Doesn't going against well known history, and adding alternative events based on speculation by vague assumptions on texts, images and other symbols violate the history theme? Well, that's just my opinion though.

Would this face lie to you:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCoRr0PIzQXhhhLD7lJZ0Yf3b0aj5cgFoXjcdFDTcEczQhqFT3Fg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
micromass said:
Would this face lie to you:

He has a scary face, but the picture he's holding made me laugh.
 
  • #29
Julio R said:
Doesn't going against well known history, and adding alternative events based on speculation by vague assumptions on texts, images and other symbols violate the history theme? Well, that's just my opinion though.

That comment was intended as sarcastic humor. :biggrin:
 
  • #30
FreeMitya said:
I've pretty much stopped watching TV altogether except for hockey. Most of it either makes me cringe or gives me a headache.

I have done the same. Other than hockey, I only watch movies.
 
  • #31
I just flip by the History Channel 2 occasionally to see if they have anything interesting. Occasionally they do. This week they have been running "The Men Who Built America" series.

http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america

The regular History Channel has been showing "The Bible" series on Sunday evenings. It is very popular with many Christians. Personally I think the book was better.:cool: Er well at least the part about Samson slaying the Philistines with the jawbone of an *** arse was.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
The show the men who built America is not that bad. I saw part of their Edison and Tesla episode.
 
  • #33
Rono said:
At least History is sort of entertaining (I watch it for Pawn Stars, it's actually a funny program), but TLC is way too much.

Yeah, and that's the problem, I don't want my history funny, I want it dead serious. And I don't want any swamp people in it. Although pawn stars gets a pass because there is some history involved, relic history, but interesting enough to get a pass. Its a little bit history, a little bit hustle.:-p
 
  • #34
I believe the Discovery channel still has some credibility left. Especially its science sister network.

http://science.discovery.com

"How it's Made", although seemingly boring on the surface once you get into watching it, it is informative and entertaining. I think the last one I watched was how a trombone was made and a coffee machine.

I've been meaning to watch Survivorman as I felt it was interesting in the descriptions, but haven't had the time.

But other than that, whatever happened to, "The Colony"? That show got me into watching programs on the discovery channel... Anyway, other than that I don't watch much TV outside of, "How it's made" and "Survivor".
 
  • #35
encorp said:
I can't stand it, it used to be on of my favourite channels when it first came out.

Now I watch Military channel a lot, since it's basically the history channel.

I see what you mean. I got my hands on this excellent series called "The Nazi Collaborators". Concise, informative and entertaining without trivialising the subject matter. Turned out that it was aired on the Military Channel, not the "History" Channel.
 
  • #36
encorp said:
I can't stand it, it used to be on of my favourite channels when it first came out.

Now I watch Military channel a lot, since it's basically the history channel.

Me too! In fact, I'm so educated on world war 2 now, that the veterans visit me to hear MY war stories...

Please press red button:

http://instantrimshot.com/
 
  • #37
The History channel use to broadcast a lot of World War 2 documentary, but now they have a sister channel called Military History.
 
  • #38
lisab said:
25103267.jpg

I hate that guy.
 
  • #39
...Typical history channel show:

--Are there evil, nazi lizard-men dwelling in the mantle of the Earth?
--Cue everal minutes of questions and suggestions, each more speculative than the previous.
--Interview "Mantle-dwelling Lizard-person expert" number 1
--Interview geologist and take his reluctance to absolutely rule out the possibility of something living kilometers below the surface of the Earth as an admission that it is almost certainly lizard-people.
--Keep going on like this, asking ever-increasingly speculative questions for about 20 minutes until:
--"So do these Lizard-people actually exist? We'll let you decide [after having listened to our overly-speculative nonsense for 25 minutes]
-- Cue credits just as the one level-headed geologist comes back on and the History chanel tries to inject a little credibility by letting him say, "No, I'm pretty darn sure that this is nonsense" before cutting him off and swooping the screen into the corner to make room for the advertisement for "Angry moon monkeys!"
 
  • #40
I don't know what you people expect from these television channels. Everyone knows that these are businesses trying to get your attention, and if that means selling entertaining nonsense then that is what they'll do. People really need to roll with disillusionment better instead of getting irate.
 
  • #41
The problem is that they don't sell what they offer and it only contributes to the large number of misconceptions people have about history. This kind of programming is really harmful to the general public.
 
  • #42
You guys might get a kick out of this one with the Ancient Aliens guy:

The evolution of ridiculousness:
http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/what-if-the-alien-guy-isnt-crazy.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Julio R said:
The problem is that they don't sell what they offer and it only contributes to the large number of misconceptions people have about history. This kind of programming is really harmful to the general public.

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.
 
  • #44
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.
 
  • #45
On top of that that they use pop scientist and historians to make themselves seem more credible when actually what these guys are saying is not accurate.
 
  • #46
Travis_King said:
You guys might get a kick out of this one with the Ancient Aliens guy:

The evolution of ridiculousness:
http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/what-if-the-alien-guy-isnt-crazy.jpg

Why did they let him get on the air like that in that last frame? LOL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
DiracPool said:
Why did they let him get on the air like that in that last frame? LOL.

Correction:

Why did they let him get on the air ever?
 
  • #48
"The History Channel" is an anagram for "Nice, then holy trash".
 
  • #49
He's like a circus clown his strange ways causes people to make a deal out of it, he's by now the most popular speaker on the show and is subject of many internet memes. Frankly I an not amused, and can't take him seriously.
I hope no one can.
 
  • #50
Julio R said:
He's like a circus clown his strange ways causes people to make a deal out of it, he's by now the most popular speaker on the show and is subject of many internet memes. Frankly I an not amused, and can't take him seriously.
I hope no one can.

It would be nice if you let us know who you are talking about. Unfortunately, it isn't that obvious as this whole thread is about various buffoons on the History channel.
 

Similar threads

History Warriors and Lock N Load on History Channel
Replies
3
Views
3K
Mad Magazine - A brief history
Replies
9
Views
828
History History Channel's Ancient Aliens
Replies
37
Views
7K
History For WW2 buffs!
3
Replies
126
Views
25K
History Hutchison on the History Channel?
Replies
16
Views
8K
Why is the consumer society dominating in today's world?
Replies
8
Views
2K
History History Channel Pilot: Invention USA
Replies
3
Views
5K
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
Replies
14
Views
3K
Job Skills Overwhelmed by Choices: Seeking Advice on Staying Engaged with Project
Replies
21
Views
2K
B Questions about recent paper on Entangled Histories
Replies
15
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top