Subject: Just How Bad Can the History Channel Be?
Posted by: daver852
Date: Feb 16 14
Watching what purports to be a biography of Thomas Jefferson on the History Channel. Perhaps the worst documentary type program I have ever seen. It states without qualification that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemmings' children. As anyone who has studied this issue knows, this is a highly controversial subject, and was NOT settled by DNA testing. The History Channel, the Learning Channel, etc., all seem to have degenerated to the point where they are not worth watching.
Posted by: daver852
Date: Feb 16 14
Watching what purports to be a biography of Thomas Jefferson on the History Channel. Perhaps the worst documentary type program I have ever seen. It states without qualification that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemmings' children. As anyone who has studied this issue knows, this is a highly controversial subject, and was NOT settled by DNA testing. The History Channel, the Learning Channel, etc., all seem to have degenerated to the point where they are not worth watching.
16 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
mountaingoat
|
Dave, I watch it all the time and found most documentaries to be fairly accurate. After the DNA tests in 1998 the Thomas Jefferson foundation formed a committee to study all the evidence and they concluded it was highly probable that Jefferson did father her children. There are still some historians who disagree. I guess they could have added the proviso that it was not totally settled but I guess they thought the evidence was enough. I get more annoyed about the liberties taken by fictional movies which have a large reach and it ends up most of the population believes the made up stuff. Reply #1. Feb 19 14, 4:49 AM |
rayven80 
|
I don't watch the History channel anymore. They haven't shown decent programming in years. Jesse James: blacksmith and American pickers? Not what I expect from them. Reply #2. Feb 19 14, 11:33 AM |
BxBarracuda
|
The History Channell has gotten a bit off course in my opinion, with more opinion and taking only the facts to fit the story they want to tell. A couple of Halloweens ago I watched back to back "documentaries" on Vlad Tepes, 1 showed him as pure evil, the other as a son who avenged his father who was wronged and had his title taken, that the sadistic tactics he used to him were to lower the morale of Muslim warriors trying to sweep into Europe, that Vlad held them off long enough that he saved the rest of Europe from become under Muslim control. Reply #3. Feb 19 14, 11:53 AM |
daver852
|
Well, the thing with Jefferson is that the DNA testing showed that someone in the Jefferson line fathered some of Hemmings' children, but did not prove that it was Thomas Jefferson. The president had a feeble-minded brother that most 19th century historians believed was the father. What I object to is the History Channel reporting that Thomas Jefferson was proven to be the father, when it is still a matter of conjecture. You will see misleading information like this on the History Channel all the time. They don't even have that many documentaries now; today's programing is entirely devoted to "American Pickers," a couple of guys who drive around looking for junk in people's garages. The Learning Channel is offering "Hoarders: Buried Alive." Not certain what we are supposed to learn from that program. Reply #4. Feb 19 14, 12:02 PM |
| mountaingoat
|
In Australia American Pickers is on another channel. I wonder if in the US they mix in a lot of dubious crap that is put on other channels here and that is lowering the tone. History, especially WW2 and the American Civil War are my areas of interest and I have not found many reasons to complain about the History Channel's accuracy. Reply #5. Feb 21 14, 12:27 AM |
SisterSeagull
|
How long have you got? Reply #6. Feb 21 14, 7:17 AM |
bowie123
|
I have noticed the difference in programes shown on the U.S.A History channel and the U.K. History channel. USA channel had programes about people visiting junkyards to buy junk and another one about people going up to the Appalachian Mountains to dig up the Ginseng plant to sell. While on the U.K.History channel they had a programes on about the Roman Empire and the Mayan Ancient Indian Civilization. Reply #7. Feb 21 14, 9:46 AM |
blindcat78
|
Some of the shows on these channels are quiet interesting to watch. On the history channel, my favorite show is "Swamp People". Reply #8. Feb 23 14, 6:39 AM |
Nammage
|
If TV or movies are where you (OP) get your history...well...hope you like mainly fiction and o e-sided viewpoints. I like to read books myself. This doesn't mean books can't be the same way, just have to read varying versions and the accuracy, evidence, and truth will be more present than just the one viewpoint. Now, the History channel does show biographies but, again: one point-of-view even if presented in various ways. Though, I do like Pawn Stars and American Pickers but even those shows have differing viewpoints. -Nam Reply #9. Mar 19 14, 6:20 PM |
| hansdelbruk
|
I've become completely disillusioned with TV, to the point that I have cancelled my cable subscription. Almost all of the intriguing documentary type stations have sold out to the "Reality" formula, including National Geographic. Seems the last bastion of credibility and taste is Smithsonian and I applaud them for it. TV used to provide me with hours of educational entertainment, now it's just commercials and mind-numbing dreck that keeps the masses in line with info on people I don't care to know about. Even "Jeopardy" has dumbed it down to keep it's popularity. THAT is a true disappointment. Goodbye TV and good riddance. Reply #10. Apr 30 14, 4:41 AM |
| rayven80
|
My fiancee and I both took the online Jepoardy test to see if we could be contestants. Both of us had many questions on things we'd never heard of, and yet most of the questions on Jeopardy are so easy that when someone misses one I yell at the television. Reply #11. Apr 30 14, 7:27 AM |
Creedy
|
Spare a thought for what they usually show here in Australia: History shows = war, war, war, war and more war. Mostly air or sea battles from World War II. They're so madly exciting that I go and watch anthills instead. BBC Knowledge = mostly that fathead Q or whatever his name is giving opinions on all and sundry and testing motorcars - whoopee doo. Sports, a particular grievance of mine here because I love sport (except football) = almost all football, where we get to see rugby etc players either trying to knock each other's blocks off, or soccer players hugging and kissing each other or running round with their t-shirts over their heads - sports has now been cancelled. Entertainment - They're still showing re-runs of "M.A.S.H." and "Bewitched" and "I Love Lucy" etc. The rate they're going with all those super old re-runs is that soon they'll be able to be classed as part of the History channel - which will make the history channel a little more exciting. Adventure type shows - men doing up old cars, men going fishing, men doing deals with pawnshops, men hunting alligators, women having breast enhancements, lip plumping, new fingernails, getting married, getting divorced getting married (usually all in one week) blah blah blah. Amazing examples of gender stereotyping. Home and Health - cooking shows, cooking shows, cooking shows (ZZZZZzzzzz), model contests with scrawny half starved individuals staggering up and down runways while wearing as little as possible etc etc etc, fashion shows (who cares!) and so on. Cable is absolutely pathetic here. The options for free to air TV are worse, and after a certain time each night, most show hours and hours of infomercials. My particular grievances are the history and BBC knowledge channels. Once they did show really excellent shows, but not now. I love history :( Basically then, if I decide to keep Cable on, I'm reduced to a choice between those lovely old black and white movies from the 1930s, of which I'm becoming an expert, or news channels which I just can't watch any more. Too much horror and subtle brainwashing going on there. I think, if I'm really REALLY lucky, they'll be showing an old Laurel and Hardy movie tonight. Reply #12. Sep 16 14, 12:41 AM |
HairyBear
|
My sympathies, folks. I don't even get cable or dish, so my choices are far more limited still. But consider the poor broadcasters' choices: 1) show dreck that appeals to 15 million people; 2) show good quality educational programming that appeals to 15 thousand people. How often will #2 be chosen? And then consider these choices: 1) show high quality original programming that costs millions of dollars to make; 2) show reruns that cost a few tens of thousands of dollars to buy; 3) show reality television that costs a few thousands of dollars to make; 4) show infomercials that actually pay the station to be on the air. The money naturally forces the originality level down down down. Reply #13. Nov 21 14, 2:45 PM |
Mixamatosis
|
I watch the "Yesterday" channel in the U.K which is a history channel. I find most of the programmes there really interesting. However there is a type of history programme I detest. It's one where the makers have a few new facts about a subject to put forward but they spend most of the programme wasting time and keeping the viewer in suspense until they reveal the few new discoveries at the end. Life's too short and my time is too valuable to waste it on "flannel". Reply #14. Jul 26 15, 2:37 AM |
| rayven80
|
I don't watch it, but I do like the idea behind the show "Alone". I'd really like to sign up for it, but I have no actual survival experience. Reply #15. May 24 16, 9:43 PM |
| Creedy
|
They now show visitors from supposed alien beings all the time on the history channel here. I wonder what sort of half-wit they have for a program manager. Reply #16. Jun 07 16, 11:38 PM |
16 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: