Yes, the History Channel can usually be credited as a reliable source, as it works with some of the best scholars in the areas covered in each program. It is, however, widely known/suspected that there is a conservative bias regarding all their episodes, most of which are based on theory not fact. Now I enjoy watching the history channel and learning about new events just as much as anyone; but if I want to get more in depth and accurate details, then I will hit the books because I recognize that it is akin to wikipedia but through a different medium.
History Channel Disinformation: http://www.rense.com/general62/hist.htm
The History Channel on the RFK Murder: http://www.moldea.com/HisChan-RFK.html
Inaccurate rubbish: http://community.history.com/topic/6882/
Ultimately, the History Channel is informative, innovative and interesting, covering topics many consider especially dry. Other than the discovery channel, nothing compares to its covering of wide subjects, from U.S. history to world history to ancient history.
Peace :)
@below: your post is not an answer to the question, which clearly requires a yes or no response.
Recognized by whom? Most television programs reduce and simplify historical issues. They are a good place to start thinking about movements, events, people, and happenings in the past, but they are compromised by the need to visualize and entertain so a scholar doesn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment