Is the History Channel Conservative?

[durutti]

Why or why not?

[Classical_Liberal]

1. I think that they are somewhat conservative now

particularly since Murdock bought half their shares. What incident provoked this question?

[neebob]

2. I dunno, I hardly ever watch it

because of all the World War II and weapons shows and, lately, the screaming fake Army dude.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Which screaming fake Army dude?

If you are talking about the host of "Mail Call" then you would be right except he isn't Army he's Marine, and he is hardly fake...so long as he is being a Marine that is.

Now, as to the original question...history tends to be pretty conservative anyway, so I would ahve to say yes the HC is indeed more conservative than say "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

[salin]

12. History tends to be conservatve...

huh? I take it you are refering to the discipline of History... and are suggesting it is inherently conservative? That's a bit of a leap. It depends upon the content one is reading, the historian one is reading (they do span the spectrum), the era and the disciplinary view.

Ironically at my conservative reagan era U (I was there in the reagan era, that is), our history dept was among the most liberal departments on campus.

But that would never have led me to conclude that history is inherently liberal... that would be.... silly.

[DarkPhenyx]

22. Yes, history tends to be conservative.

It is horribly resistant to change, is written mostly by those who have controled the government, who by and large are conservative in nature and outlook, and in general tends to try and put teh best spin possible on the events presented.

[neebob]

17. Yes, that's the one

So he's a real Marine? Whoops! Like I said, I don't watch. I just go, "Ack! There's that screaming fake Army dude" and change the channel. From now on I'll go, "Ack! There's that screaming Marine that I foolishly thought was a fake Army dude" and change the channel.

[DarkPhenyx]

23. See!

Now don't you feel better about reality? I actually like R. Lee.

[bearfartinthewoods]

25. i could be wrong here but i think the same company

owns BRAVO where Queer Eye is and the history channel?

[Mikimouse]

3. I would vote yes on the question

It has become increasingly clear that they are intent on tarnishing the records of John and Bobby Kennedy. Over the course of the past year they have aired several hours of 'Kennedy Affairs', seemingly with the aim of spotlighting 'moral failures'. Seems very reminiscent of the 'Troopergate' and Whitewater stuff. I have written to them on multiple occasions, but have never received a reply.

[JHB]

15. That I attribute more to...

...a confluence of the "opening" of those subjects thanks to the attacks in Clinton, the declassification of Kennedy-era documents and FBI files, and the popularity of the Kennedys, so that this was something that wasn't just recycling previous Kennedy biographies. While it is unfair to the Dems, can you think of a (dead) Republican president in the entire 20th century who you'd even care what his pecadillos were?

[laura888]

4. hell yes! All those shows about WWII eclipse shows about...

...the other history-making events of the 20th century - the changes in labor law, civil rights law.

To me, the latter are just as important.

I believe that the WWII shows are meant to help whip Americans into a patriotic frenzy.

[trogdor]

21. Nah, it's all about ratings.

labor and civil rights history is important, yes, but the reason war trumps both is because war gets ratings.

Admit it. The sections on the world wars in school were much more exciting than the sections on the NAACP or the AFL/CIO.

As long as TV is about ratings and the lowest common denominator, this is what you'll get on the History Channel - war and technology.

[La_Serpiente]

5. They are "revisionist historians"

[DarkPhenyx]

7. They are hardly revisionist.

Let's not go overboard, yet again, on this thread.

[Catch22Dem]

8. I'm a history buff

And the majority of the WWII shows on the History Channel are really good. They have some new ones like Battlefield Detectives which mixes history with a little CSI which is kinda cool too. I don't know if I'd call them conservative.

Also, "that fake army dude" is R. Lee Ermey who is an awesome actor in those very specific roles like the drill instructor in Full Metal Jacket. He served 1.5 tours in Vietnam while in the USMC. So, he's not a fake.

[JNelson6563]

9. Let's see....

Lots and lots of America is Great war footage, lots of biblical history....if I watched only that I might forget the world existed before America.

Conservative? Kinda smells that way.....

Julie

[CoffeePlease1947]

10. NO it is not

Most the shows that the History Channel are produced in Hollywood. I know for fact that History's Mysteries are made by a very liberal company based in Hollywood.

Many of the other ones, such as tours of ships, are produced by Seattle Companies.

There may be a few conservatives that work there but for the most part they are producations made by Hollywood and Seattle people that lean liberal. Notheless they do have work with many military people and most of them are very Republican and slightly conservative.

Mike

[LWolf]

11. I don't know.

I watched it a few times when I first got it, years ago. I noticed that the only history I could ever find on it was the history of war. Since it seemed to be "single issue" history, I quit watching. It could be that it has evolved since then. I never checked back to find out.

My guess is that a program who thinks that war is the most interesting, significant event in history, if they are still more focused on war than anything else, might lean a little to the right.

[DarkPhenyx]

14. Violence is an extremely important part of history.

The great changes in the course of Earth have come about primarily as a result of violence. Not just war, but all forms of violence. It's sad but true. This includes changes in Medicine, manufacturing, exploration, Philospohy, and a great many other "non-violent" areas.

[JHB]

13. It leans conservative...

but not drasticly -- usually.

Most of it is pretty conventional history... with all the plusses and minuses which come along with that: lots of "guns, gadgets, Great Men and mysteries", light on "peoples history"-type fare. Labor, civil, and womens' rights get much less air time, and are rarely dwelt on long enough to cover the complexities of these movements, nor the staunchness of their opposition. And, of course, most of it is American history, ignoring the rest of the world much of the time.

However, their "in the news now"-type programming (such as shows on Iraq) tend to follow the administration line or those of conservative critics. I haven't seen lefty critics get much airtime. And I've seen some of the "live" commentators for some shows and movies show a remarkable conservative/pro-Bush bias whereas liberal historians or administration critics are far more circumspect in airing their views.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

16. The 'Hitler' Channel

was better when they focused on WWII.

Recent show on Yugoslavia reamed Bill Clinton. Almost apologized for Milosevic. Skimmed over the Bosnian genocide.

Some other recent shows:

Saddam's Death Chambers
Saddam and Osama (helping to connect the two)
Saddam's Sons

All about torture and filmed in a sensationalistic manner.

They have definitely turned conservative

[Loonman]

18. Silly question

Is milk conservative?

Is cottage cheese democratic?

Is the umbrella stand libertarian?

[dofus]

19. The History Channel has become

a lot like the history section in a Dalton's bookstore -- all history seems to begin and end with WWII. There's so much more to be covered.

[leftofthedial]

20. reactionary, very pro-military

their take on "History" seems to be crafted for the adult white male:

Eurocentric, Christian-centric, war-centric . . . a pretty outmoded view of history.

It is impossible to tell what is cause and what is effect, but whenever the GOPNAC needs a PR boost , "The Hitler Channel" (as I call it) seems to be right there with 24X7 anti-Saddam or anti-terrorism programming. They did this during the build-up to the Invasion of Iraq, with day after day of "Tyrants: Hitler, Stalin and Saddam." It seemed at the time that this sequence ran and was promoed nonstop for about a month.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. I've noticed it getting more militaristic over the years

especially the non-stop broadcasting of World War II documentaries. You know, military chic is part and parcel of fascism, so I've felt that this sharp pro-military emphasis is a way of stirring up militarist-nationalist feelings in the average viewer.

I have also seen them distort recent historical events that I remember with a right-wing spin.

For better and broader-based coverage of history, I suggest that digital (and possibly satellite) subscribers turn to History International, which runs a lot of foreign documentaries. Last night, for example, they ran two BBC documentaries, one about the Great Fire of London in 1666 and its many historical ramifications, and another about the Falkland Islands War, which admittedly is another war documentary, but since we never heard many of the details over here, it was interesting to see. I found it quite frank about the horrors of even a "little" war.

Discovery Civilization used to be good, too, until the NY Times bought it out. Now it's apt to carry propaganda pieces.