"History" and the History Channel

[RodM]

Hi Everyone,

as poorly researched and inaccurate as many of these throw-away history documentaries are, will they be regularly watched or taken seriously in 50 years time?

Now, if you want to know about something really, really scary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/ma...secondworldwar

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/foi/log2007.htm

It really scares me that there are persons willing to go to such lengths to falsify history, especially when their motives are not clear...

Cheers

Rod

[Skyraider3D]

That is worrying indeed.

Originally Posted by RodM

It really scares me that there are persons willing to go to such lengths to falsify history, especially when their motives are not clear...

The first article reads:
"After a 13-month police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that it was not in the public interest to prosecute, in part because of Allen's deteriorating health."
Perhaps this man wanted to make his mark as a writer/historian by coming up with something sensational before he was too sick to do so. So he had to invent something outrageous and stick in into the national archives to give him "proof". Sad case if that's really so...

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by RodM

as poorly researched and inaccurate as many of these throw-away history documentaries are, will they be regularly watched or taken seriously in 50 years time?

Rod,

On the face of it you'd be tempted to agree to such a statement, but there is the popular perception to contend with. It is one thing to argue about History with a capital H and the perception of the masses.

Discovery and History channel with their 24/7 approach are capable of influencing the popular view by sheer volume.

[RodM]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Rod,

On the face of it you'd be tempted to agree to such a statement, but there is the popular perception to contend with. It is one thing to argue about History with a capital H and the perception of the masses.

Discovery and History channel with their 24/7 approach are capable of influencing the popular view by sheer volume.

Hi Ruy,

I certainly agree with you on the immediate effect on the 'masses' of these 'documentaries'... especially if they are bombarded with the same falsehoods again and again...

Rod

[Six Nifty .50s]

Before anyone flogs the History Channel again, they should examine the credibility of standard reference sources in the library system.

THE OXFORD COMPANION TO MILITARY HISTORY (Oxford University Press, 2001) is filled with appalling inaccuracies. This book contains hundreds of brief histories concerning various people, places, events and equipment. As a taste of what to expect, on page 826 the writers tell us of a famous aircraft designer:

" ... Severesky, Alexander Prokofiev de (1894-1974) ... In 1938 he designed a fighter around the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine which became the P-47 Mustang, the key to air superiority over Germany in WW II ... "

The editor of this book was Richard Holmes (a professor at the Royal Military College of Science) who frequently appears as a commentator in BBC documentaries shown on the History Channel.

[aaatripp]

Thanks, "Six", for posting your reply. Whether it's published in a book or included in a video for presentation on cable.....it becomes "carved in stone" for the masses. Those of us in the world who really try to "get it right" are frustrated with the errors (and sometimes GLARING ERRORS!). But, what is the alternative.....fewer or no programs? The History Channel is buying these programs from producers who put the project together. Look at the credits and you'll see who they are. Lou Reda Productions and the others are the guys who are responsible for the quality control. Some are better than others. Rather than using the "canned" photos or films from stock companies (frequently accessed from government/Air Force/Navy films sources, etc.) they could be doing more extensive research to "get it right". However, that time/expertise combo gets to be expensive....and cuts into their ability to produce a video "for profit". Hey, it's not a charity service....!

I love the obvious gaff in that oft-used clip of the F-6F Hellcat starting its takeoff roll on a WWII aircraft carrier and the camera angle changes to its takeoff and VOILA!.....it has been transformed by the miracle of editing into a TBF Avenger (look for the rear turret). Sounds like a 1944 era Transformer to me.

And, thanks to Seversky, we HAD that P-47 Mustang to fly in the ETO against the German Luftwaffe.....especially after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!! (Thanks, Belushi!)


BTW, thanks John for starting this thread and encouraging this open discussion. The addition of Art Fiedler was an added plus of the real story from "someone who was THERE". The response from Mark Horan was indeed revealing. His name appears in the credits for historical programs and the story he related to us is a very lucid picture of the real culprits....the producers ("don't confuse me with the facts!"). Look at the last version of the movie Pearl Harbor!!....and Hollywood makes the Director/Producer a hero and gives them awards!

Why can't we have more historical series like Battlefield, with their carefully researched and presented analysis of military operations? It's driven by the combination of money and entertaining the general public....ie. we lose! Maybe we need a History Channel for Historical & Technical Experts. Unfortunately, we'd be viewing a test pattern most of the time......

You guys do a great job with this FORUM. There have been so many positive outcomes from research, questions, discussions on 12 o'clock High. So many try to "get it right".

THANK YOU!