When is the History Channel Wrong?

[DaveSmith]

I know that people have discussed some of The History Channels errors before, but have there been any articles on the matter? I know someone that uses the History Channel as his holy gospel, and oft-times, information he gets from there just seems glaringly inaccurate. Does the History Channel often get things wrong, or is it just me?

[Gene Tausk]

Well, not to sound too much like a lawyer, but it really does depend on how you define "wrong." Like all TV channels and networks (including PBS), they tend to focus on the sensationalistic in an attempt to get viewers which sometimes calls into account the accuracy of a program or the program's ability to withstand scrutiny. The History Channel as of late has been "guilty" of running a series of programs about "UFO's throughout history" which instead of relying on scholarship and debate focused too much on the "true believers" who will see a UFO just about anywhere. They also ran a series of programs on cryptozoology (what this has to do with history is beyond me) which also was lacking in skepticism.

On the plus, side, however, I know John has been on a few shows on THC and they also produced an excellent adaptation of the book "Isaac's Storm" detailing the awful hurricane of 1900 that destroyed Galveston, Texas. They had some programs on the Roman Empire which were quite good and they also had a miniseries entitled Russia: Land of the Czars which was also quite well done, if a bit shallow.

I suppose if I had to give them an overall grade it would be a B-, which is not too bad for a TV network.

However, like anything else on TV, NOTHING should be taken as "gospel." Watching a program on THC or any other channel may whet the appetite to get more information, but it should never be the last word.


----------->>>>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[Mike_McGurk]

If by wrong you mean wrong in regard to european arms and armor and their application, then the answer is pretty often. Armor will often be described as laborously heavy and clumsy, with every now and then, the inevitable being mentioned: were a knight to stumble in plate armor, he would be unable to get back up unaided. Swords get similar treatment (a military historian who appeared on THC described a knight's sword as weighing up to 30 lbs!). However, the accuracy is often dependent on which show you are watching, when it was made and whether the discussion of arms, armor and combat could be considered a tangent instead of the primary focus of the program.

[DaveSmith]

So they seem to have lots of hits and misses. I've never had cable/satellite(nor do I watch much TV anyway), so I've only caught the History Channel 2 or 3 times. Each time it was based on some portion of medieval history and had some glaring inaccuracies (not counting the castle episode, because I hardly know anything about castles). So thank you for filling me in on History Channel as a whole.

[John_Clements]

It get's a LOT wrong.
It's programs are not produced by "historians."

[Patrick Kelly]

I think asking "What do they get right?" might be quicker to answer.

[DaveSmith]

Thanks John, I had a sneaking suspicion, but I would never claim to be enough of an historian myself to be able to expertly speak on the matter. Plus, like I said before, I didn't want to judge something that I didn't have a TON of experience with (don't watch much TV).