Do you think the History Channel is generally accurate and balanced?

Question

I find it interesting, educational, and entertaining, but worry that I may put too much stock in it.

Answer 1

While the History Channel can be a good starting point for information, I would not trust it entirely. Doing your own research is a far better idea, using the basic ideas presented in some of the History Channel's documentaries.

The unfortunate thing is that the History Channel, like every other channel, is interested in market share, eg. in making money. They air what sells. And unfortunately, what sells isn't always the truth. They have a very unfortunate habit of airing "controversial" documentaries in which "experts" are interviewed without bothering to mention that the "controversy" may not even exist, at least not according to most mainstream scholars, and that the "experts" they are interviewing do not have the credentials to be speaking on the subject at hand. The producers of some of the documentaries also have an unfortunate habit of reediting some experts comments to fit what they'd like them to say rather than what they actually said without bothering to tell the expert that they are doing so.
A number of colleagues of mine are rather disgusted with the History Channel based on some of their abuses of public trust. In essence, though many of the shows are worthwhile, a number of them are not. (Ancient aliens anyone? James Cameron's Exodus documentary?) Unfortunately, responsible scholars don't really have a forum to reach the public about these issues or a way to get the History Channel to be a little more responsible about what they air as "scholarship." Refusing to participate in documentaries tends doesn't work as they simply shop around until they find someone willing to say what they want to hear. It's unfortunate, really, and there are any number of people who have no way of knowing how to evaluate the claims made in a number of these documentaries and who will never know that they've been mislead.

Answer 2

Considering the sad fact the the History Channel has devolved into a virtual 24/7 "Modern Marvels" marathon and rarely aires any programs that actually deal with history, I'd say this question doesn't apply. It used to be a good channel...now it just sucks.

Answer 3

Just keep in mind that history is written by the winners, and there are always 2 sides to every story. It's never a bad idea to keep an open mind and question what you're told.

Answer 4

i have been observing that sequence to boot. they have various of professionals that they interview on in spite of the indisputable fact that particular topic they are discussing. on the Nostradamus 2012 ingredient, those professionals are theorizing on what became meant. they'd a documentary in this meant lost e book of Nostradamus very last year, and they couldn't say for particular if it became even from him! i'm getting various of information on the historic past of my faith from the historic past Channel and it supplies me some suggestions on issues to analyze further, yet I do understand that the students on there have a preconceived idea of ways issues got here about because of their beliefs. Peace and God bless!

Answer 5

Nothing can possibly be as "fair and balanced" as Fox News.

Answer 6

It over dramatizes sometimes but I think is is fair and balanced

Answer 7

Yes, but the format of half-hour or hour shows is of necessity limiting.

Answer 8

Accurate but unbalanced like you fool.

Answer 9

no and they really really over dramatize, they try to be balanced but they don't make it.

Answer 10

of course, they will not make if it is not accurate and balance.