Do you consider History Channel...

Let's put things on perspective. TV is a different medium from print. When presenting information on TV, the information presented has to be compressed to fit the limited time. This is where the soundbite comes in.
I don't tend to disparage the resource persons presented in such shows. They all earned their degrees. The real problem lies in the questions presented before them and the length of time they are given for them to answer. Thus, they are forced to issue a soundbite.
In print, authors and researchers have the luxury of space. When we read, we focus on the book. This doesn't happen in TV with all the channels competing for our attention. Thus the shows have to be "packaged" and often "teasers" designed to attract our attention to a show exaggerate things. Thus when we watch that particular show, we feel let down. Also, we have to remember that we all have our instinctive biases based on the books we have read. I've worked in TV before and the pace is just hectic. There's never enough time to put in everything we've researched or worked on. The usual result is a short cut with emphasis on making things visually appealing. That's the weakness (and strength) of documentary TV.

 

Very true and very good point, but I have seen many documentaries that have displayed falsh or misleading informtion, and this I find to be ridiculas. I like to watch the History Channel for the reels they show from ww2 and to see real tanks and infantry exactly as they were and not reinacted, you can see the stress and pain on their faces.

I watch a documentary today on the Higgins boat, aka LCVP. Apparently the reason the Americans won Normandy was because the Germans under rated the General American Soldier. I konw you just made the point about not enough time to show all the facts but they should make time or not show it. Becuase we all know that the allies won because of many reasons some being, air superiority, surprise, lack of tanks by the Germans (contentin Pennisula) and the sheer industrial might of the US capable of building so many tanks, support vehicles, and landing craft. Out of all these reasons why, they chose to only say that it was due to the Germans under rating the Americans.

I am tired of propaganda films about the USA, and how awesome they are and how everthing in the was because of them. We all know they had a great military and awesome industiral power, but they were not the only nation in the war, they were not the only ones fighting, and they were not the only ones to land on Normandy. Britain and Canada being the other nations to land large amounts of troops continue to over shadwoed by Hollywood and American propaganda.

Sorry for the rant, I had too, oh and it was not directed at you Falcon Jun

 

No offense taken. I understand your view because I share it too.

 

So that explains why I saw snow footage on a battle of Kursk (July!) show.

 

I've found the History Channel quite grating, the mistakes are bad enough, but are generally forgivable given what a massive range of subjects it covers. The worst part is how patronising they are should you dare to approach them to point out their errors.
We all make mistakes, and I'm always happy to stand corrected in a bid for accuracy, I think we all generally are aren't we?

 

It's sensory to the extreme.

Which makes it "artificial" to say the least. It's (as was mentioned), meant to sell.
The only thing you see is action, instead of the usual dust, fog, night, and boredom which accompanies war.
The only thing you smell are the Cheeto's in your hand, instead of the rotting flesh, blood, fuel, and acrid smoke.
The only thing you hear (mainly) is "Theme" music (Wagner/Phantom of the Opera/usually "Classical") instead of deafening explosions/gun-shots, screams, cries, whimpering, pleading sounds of suffering.
The only thing you feel is excitement instead of pain, burns, ice cold water, wounds/traumatic amputations.
The passing thoughts you have are what you would've done (in that situation/differently) and show little or no sympathy for those who knew nothing of "the Big Picture", and were confused, desperate, scared, and following orders to an uncertain future.

In other words, all of the "Goodie", and little, virtually? none (I dislike this word for being a "catch-all", but sometimes it applies) if any at all, of the "Crud".

False allure.

It's better than reality TV !

 

Please keep in mind that many of us who live here in the US don't particularly care for Hollywood or CNN's (or Fox or ABC or...) way of looking at our country, or our history any more than you do. Yes, we played a part. Yes, many other countries played a part. IMO, in Europe, we supplied more in materiel than in blood, and some countries seem to resent that. We did most of our bleeding in the Pacific. Seems all the countries did what they saw they could do best. With all our factories and homeland intact, we supplied everyone we could with everything we could make, with some obvious exceptions.

 

Well put. Your reply reminds of Laswell's theory of communications, which says "Who says what to whom and to what effect." Good of you to point that out. I forgot that aspect of TV production.

 

Like Richard above, I don't have digi TV and have never watched History Channel - I've just noticed that when anyone on here uses HC as support for a posting, it seems to be incorrect or over-simplified.....

The only TV documentary series that I watch and re-watch is Peter Batty's famous 'World At War' from the early 1970s. Outdated in many ways ( the ULTRA secret hadn't been revealed at that time ) it's still a very powerful piece of TV.

 

I do agree with both of you and in no way challange what you say, but it is still annoying to only see movies, documentaries and films on the US.

 

Well, over here HC shows more than about the US but then it's a different market. I've seen a series on Napoleon on Central Europe (Battle of Leipzig et al), Spanish Civil War, the July'44 plot, the Aral Sea dry out, and the US were scarcely mentioned

This of course made the HC shorcomings global instead of US-centric

 

What I really hate is when they contiously go back and show the Normandy landings over and over again. I mean they very important in terms of the progress of the war, but why cant they show some lesser known battles of the war, ones no one knows. They did a poll a while a go on the top ten battles and then they were going to show them in documentries, and surprise surprise, it was the usual, D-day, Berlin, Kurst, Stalingrad. Cassino, BoB, Battle for france, and I dont remember the others but you get the point.

 

Preaching to the choir, Tomcat, preaching to the choir.:headbonk:

 

Not realy the web site but the documentaries are pretty informitive!

 

military channel: good documentary's about weapons :bad there top ten combat rifles are way off and i hate future weapons

 

Nope, not anymore. Why? alot has to do with that they are trying to pass off "Revisionist History" for that of actual history. Revisionist History is that that is nothing more than someone trying to rewrite actual history.

For another, they have now flooded both stations with garbage-such as: the history of logging. Boy that sure makes the whistles blow the bells ring and the kazoos make noise-to see that kind of program.

 

Confucius said: "If your palate is attuned to McBacon, then you won't be able to properly value the fineries of Steak Chateaubriand".

 

I always say the public watches what they deserve. This is why HC programmes are different according to the counties it is broadcasted. They have probably tired other subjects and found out that some are popular in one country and not in another.


Hey Za I will demand royalties for the Confucius quotes!
Confuscius says: if you drop my four flavored duck you will get a five flavored duck.

 

This says it all LOL.
http://www.ww2f.com/free-fire-zone/25603-history-dung.html