Press Ministry Requests $17M for 1C's Patriotic Computer Game

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by Novotny

You must understand, the History channel is not exactly written by or for the educated.

To wit:

"Why does the History Channel have such an inclination to lying or exaggerating and being subjective?
Every time I see something on the History Channel, it contradicts completely what other sources say.

Like for instance, at the battle of Iwo Jima, the History Channel says that the Americans suffered 8000 casualties whilst the Japanese suffered more than 300,000 casualties. Yet on wikipedia, it says that the Americans suffered 27,909 casualties while the Japanese actually suffered 22,786 casualties - which was nearly the entire Japanese garrison of the island: they therefore actually suffered less casualties than the Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

Or the Battle of Gaugamela were the History Channel says that there was 250,000 Persians fighting, contradicting Discovery Civilization Channel which says there were 60,000 Persians.

I can cite hundreds of examples, but I'm am afraid you'd stop reading. So why is the History Channel like this?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

This is a really funny question. I love the responses. First, let me say that I am a Grad Student of Medieval history. I have been studying College level history for the last 6 years and I am hoping to get a Ph.D. in Medieval history in the next 2-3 years.

The History Channel is GARBAGE. Here is the truth: historians dedicate their lives to a specific field of research, and debate evidence they have found. All history is debate and agreement between two historians can be very difficult to find.

For documenteries from PBS or the History Channel, it is impossible to for them to present all sides of any historical issues. There are simply are too many scholars with too many ideas about how the past happened. Go to a larger university library and look up the crusades. You should find over a thousand book on the subject, all of which specialise in different issues, arguing different points and forging different conclusions. How could you condense all these books with all their disagreements into one hour long documentary? YOU CAN'T.

Now, the History Channel is worse than most because they try to be entertaining to a specific demographic of Americans. That are looking at the older, conservative, non-academically trained, "history buff." Somebody who casualy reads about World War II, but lacks the ability to read foreign languages and lacks access to a scholarly library. Hence, the History Channel's programming is a very popular version of history which often oversimplifies complex events; it generally covers American topics from an American point of view, and even throws in some programming about monster machines, Ice Road Truckers and programming about what would happen if humans suddenly disappeared - all of which have nothing to do with history.

The bottom line is that the History Channel wants to entertain the every-day Joe and give him a sense of knowledge so they can make money. Nobody will watch a program about how Ancient Greek colonists interacted with the native people of ancient Sicily. Most people find the push by archaeologists to find the marble quarries used to build the Parthanon in Athens interesting, but that's history. But you can go to a university and listen to talks on these subjects.

As a grad student in Medieval history, I ALWAY begin my research with Wikipedia which every history professor in the country would approve of. It gives you a broad overview of almost any subject, a list of major players which one should research, and usually a bibliography which states some of the most accepted sources on the subject. It is a wonderful starting point: it isn't always "accurate" but then again, history is debate. It usually gives you a simple explanation of all sides of the debate.

I just love how academic historians and popular historians disagree."

(Novotny here. I have sub-edited the above to remove grammatical errors and improve the readability, without changing the basic discourse. original link: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4102816AAKYEvo)

Basically, if you want to understand history, go to a university. If you want to be entertained, watch TV.

It's probably not worth taking this even further off topic, but I have been interviewed for two different History Channel productions (Deep Sea Detectives and Man-MomentMachine) and I can attest to how appallingly poor the production process is. I was brought in as an expert, but when I refused to go along with their tidy, but fictitious, narrative, they went hunting for somebody else who would support it. The way History Channel buys content is purely low bid. Good research has a cost and they are not willing to pay it.

[Oktoberfest]

If you watch History Channel, you end up believing that lone P-51s, P-47s or P-38s were able to destroy German and/or Japanese fighters 10 at a time EVERY sortie they made every day of the war.

However, most real history books shows that the war didn't end two weeks after the USA entered into the conflict.

Since I've seen the depiction of WW2 aerial warfare in "Dogfights", I think History channel just lacks enough money to put their "documentaries" in movie theatres because the effects are too cheap.

However, the lack of accuracy, cheap scenario and patriotic messages are worth any Jerry Bruckheimer production.

And this is just for very recent, well documented and easily accessible History.

Now imagine what they are saying about pre-History or antic History.

[ramstein]

Originally Posted by Oktoberfest

If you watch History Channel, you end up believing that lone P-51s, P-47s or P-38s were able to destroy German and/or Japanese fighters 10 at a time EVERY sortie they made every day of the war.

However, most real history books shows that the war didn't end two weeks after the USA entered into the conflict.

Since I've seen the depiction of WW2 aerial warfare in "Dogfights", I think History channel just lacks enough money to put their "documentaries" in movie theatres because the effects are too cheap.

However, the lack of accuracy, cheap scenario and patriotic messages are worth any Jerry Bruckheimer production.

And this is just for very recent, well documented and easily accessible History.

Now imagine what they are saying about pre-History or antic History.

this is a good example where proof would help..

ok,
which fights/battles were misrepresnted.. as posted, so far it is opinion.. I need specifics..

I always saw them as giving credit when credit was due.. if we got our ass kicked, they showed us getitng our ass kicked..
if we were winning, they showed us winning..

btw, I speak to wwii vets often, in person for hours on end.. and not one of them had a complaint about the History channel