Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We should keep in mind that the purpose of the History Channel isn't really to convey history lessons, it is to generate ratings and sell advertising. It is the entertainment business and decisions will get made based on that rather than any concerns about high quality content.
The reason that they have such crap programming now is that programs about ancient alien visitations, conspiracy theories and swamp dwellers draw higher ratings than programs about Thomas Jefferson or William Walker.
^
Agree. In cable they have to fight for every low rating point because of the sheer number of channels they're competing with.
I always got the feeling they were simply 'popularizing' historical events in a 'hysterical' way. On the other hand, one can watch a bit and then go off and explore away from the TV production by going to good books to get a more in depth angle on the event. The programs up to a point could give use as an introduction.
Wouldn't be surprised if they did a piece on Custer and vampires or zombies at the Little Big Horn...;-)...
We should keep in mind that the purpose of the History Channel isn't really to convey history lessons, it is to generate ratings and sell advertising. It is the entertainment business and decisions will get made based on that rather than any concerns about high quality content.
That is petty much true with just about every other TV or even radio outlet. It's all about the money though with radio it's not only that but making do with less. A few years ago in my hometown two small kids were killed in a house fire but yet on a local TV newscast the TOP story was about the Kardashians and Bruce Jenner. My aunt was so upset about that she actually contacted the station about it but was told by their management that they make more money and get more viewers with Kardashian/Jenner stories than they do about a fire in the community.
We should keep in mind that the purpose of the History Channel isn't really to convey history lessons, it is to generate ratings and sell advertising. It is the entertainment business..
These two objectives (documenting history, and making money) aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. History(Channel) was selling advertising the first 10-15 years of their existence before significantly altering their product away from traditional history.
Could some of their programming changes have to do with the initially low production costs of making trendy reality shows, as opposed to purchasing/producing lengthy historical documentaries, etc. (?)
Has anyone tracked (& can cite) if History Channel's non-traditional documentaries are actually rating higher than the more mainstream subject matter they were broadcasting 15-20 years ago (?) Excluding 'reality' shows like Pawn Stars.. but like the alien stuff vs. the programs they used to routinely run on WW2, etc..
These two objectives (documenting history, and making money) aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. History(Channel) was selling advertising the first 10-15 years of their existence before significantly altering their product away from traditional history.
Could some of their programming changes have to do with the initially low production costs of making trendy reality shows, as opposed to purchasing/producing lengthy historical documentaries, etc. (?)
Has anyone tracked (& can cite) if History Channel's non-traditional documentaries are actually rating higher than the more mainstream subject matter they were broadcasting 15-20 years ago (?) Excluding 'reality' shows like Pawn Stars.. but like the alien stuff vs. the programs they used to routinely run on WW2, etc..
The competition was thinner 15 years ago, television viewing has declined a great deal since then. I do not have the data you request nor am I motivated enough in the matter to go in search of it. I would make the assumption that their programming choices are tied to revenue considerations because that is how the business works. Whether it is reduced production costs compared to their earlier content, or higher ratings thus higher revenues from the junk programming, profit considerations drove the decisions.
They aren't in the education business, they are in show business, so it is probably a waste of time to critique their programming choices from the perspective of historical quality. If they used to aim higher and now are targeting a less sophisticated audience, it was because in today' television market, it is more profitable for them.
You know it will be interesting to see how Apple's foray into a new business where they intend to stream broadcast channels and programming and be a competitor to cable.
As we know, the cable providers 'bundle' channels in their service and consequently households pay for channels that they don't really even watch. It is expensive and can be a waste of money. Usually services give many many channels but some cable users only watch 4 channels consistently. Apple wants to give a choice of channels to select from.
I'd think if Apple's service eventually takes off and gets support from broadcasters and cable nets there will be a lot of pressure on those networks that get very small ratings. The HC could be one of them if they don't see which way the wind is blowing.
I do like American Pickers, because it does contain actual history. They find objects from the past and we learn about them, how they were made, and how they were used. But all the other reality shows on History Channel aren't about any history (Swamp People? Ice Road Truckers? really?) I used to think Pawn Stars at least qualified a little, but they've since become more about their interpersonal dynamics than about the historical objects.
The History channel I get is more about Pawn Stars, American pickers, and Ax Men than anything else. I don't get H2, so maybe that's the one you're referring to. Either way, you have a point.
Plus the Vikings. All of the reality type shows are completely staged but history is the go to channel that my tv is,set to when I wake up and what I turn off when I go to bed. While these shows can get boring, at least ill be able to watch them and enjoy them without having to watch each like you do with a drama series and it's better than a lot of crap. USA used to be my go to channel until they put on that modern family junk. Ncis also got a bit tiring. And enough of svu. I don't want to watch that stuff. So history shows are mostly benign.
I do remember when the history channel used to be about actual history in the late 90s and early 2000s. But that too is tiring. Same stuff over and over and same biased history. History is written by the victors. It is not actually an accurate account of what happened.
Seems to me the History channel is about anything but history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
