Overall, how accurate are the programs on 'The History Channel'?

Question

On a scale of one to ten (10 being the highest), please rate the historical accuracy of the programs on "The History Channel" overall.

Kindly explain your response. Thank you.

Answer 1

I'd say about a "7". For the most part the programming is accurate, but it is often incomplete or biased, and also sensationalized.

Answer 2

Not all the programming is the same, so that is hard to rank. I would say, from watching it, it is probably a 5. Most of the time I find that the basic outline of what they are explaining is correct, but they often favor controversial or sensationalistic interpretations of events. Or, at least, they give equal time to an argument that has a lot of evidence and then some crazy made up theory that no historian agrees with. Y'know, they are making television after all. Also, they tend to screw up some of the details, especially when it comes to interpreting the meaning of particular events or putting them in cultural or political context. Plus, the focus is really Eurocentric, which I don't find that interesting. I'm not as interested in European history as the average person, I guess.

Answer 3

I give it an 8. Most Teachers use it in there courses to help get there point across to the students. Also I find myself glued to the history channel when Digging for the Truth is on. I like that show. I find the shows about Ancient Egypt are very accurate.

Answer 4

i've got been watching that sequence besides. they have a super kind of specialists that they interview on despite specific subject count they're discussing. on the Nostradamus 2012 element, those specialists are theorizing on what became into meant. that they had a documentary in this meant lost e book of Nostradamus final twelve months, and that they could not say for beneficial if it became into even from him! i'm getting a super kind of information on the background of my faith from the background Channel and it supplies me some techniques on issues to study further, yet I do understand that the pupils on there have a preconceived thought of ways issues surpassed off because of the fact of their ideals. Peace and God bless!

Answer 5

I'd say....... 7. They tend to be very elementary school history. Good enough for a general knowledge of history, but if you want to write an academic book, the history channel is not a source.

Answer 6

The history channel is great for a basic understanding of events and people - but does not always go in-depth about what was happening behind the scenes.

Answer 7

They are pretty accurate as several authorities generally give opinions and explanations. But, different interpretations lead to different opinions, so based on close research on my own, about several of their shows, makes me believe that they are about seventy five to eight percent accurate in general. However, where they have more documentation they tend to me more accurate; even up to a hundred percent. It depends on the available evidence to research. It many cases it is all based on limited knowledge, with fill ins by the hosts.

Answer 8

I think they are probably about a 9. I like that they usually have different people who have researched the subject from various angles give their opinions and document their reasoning. that way you get the full spectrum about an event or period, and can kind of form your own idea's.

I don't think we know all the things we think we do however, and i am totally thrilled when a new discovery is made that throws all the old accepted "facts" in the toilet.

Answer 9

7
the FACTS on the history channel seem to be pretty reliable, but the commentary and other such things sometimes distort the relevance of facts and what they mean.

Answer 10

I FOUND THE HISTORY CHANNEL TO BE ABOUT 85% ACCURACY.THEY USE ABOUT 15% FICTION