The History Channel

Post Reply New Topic

To be honest, and considering what the History Channel IS as opposed to what it IS NOT, isn't the goal of presenting balanced views on "history," politics, religion, and so on to appeal to an audience and ask them to draw their own conclusions? In that regard, it's not unlike discussions in this forum, just with better multimedia and more expensive production. There's not a real sense of "win/lose" other than your own opinion of whether a debate is won/lost, and even then arguments are won on certain points and lost on others, a sort of both-and-neither kind of thing depending on the perspective of the reader.

Now, the point of HC is more entertainment than education. It's fairly obvious when the content is factual and when it's not. I think it appeals more to trailer-trash rednecks like myself, and it's a lot classier than sitting on the porch, drinking beer, watching the bug zapper while eating pickled pork lips. It becomes really obvious who their target demographic is when they show all the conspiracy theory and secret society programs, like how America was started by Freemasons, and all the other stuff about the Illuminati, blah, blah, blah. Those things are nothing if not sensationalism. It only gets to be a problem when it inspires you to buy as many assault rifles as you can with your inheritance, build a cabin in a secluded area in the mountains, take up the banjo, homeschool your kids, teach them how to shoot, and move all your sister-wives to your private mountain home.

Redneck channel topic

I can see it now...Billy Joe McAllister jumping off the Tallahassee Bridge, the Ozark Mountain Daredevils and Jackie Blue, Family Fueds, Arnold the pig and Green Acres, Flatt and Scruggs and HeeHaw, and the Beverly Hillbillies thrown in to what AngelRho proposed.

And do not forget the KKK, and burning the Qu'ran

24 hour Good Ol'Boys Network.

That already exists: it's called Fox News.

What's the current opposite to Fox News? I haven't watched broadcast or cable television consistently (with the exception of occasionally watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation if my wife and I happen to be awake at 11pm and otherwise not busy, or the local weather channels when there are tornadoes happening around us) for about nearly a decade. When I lived in a motel while working for Wal-Fart back in 2007, I had the chance to watch television again and such shows as Mythbusters, Future Weapons, Stargate Atlantis, Star Trek Enterprise, and such other shows that I hadn't know existed until then. However, it's easy enough to find them on Amazon (and even YouTube occasionally) so I have no need to bother with scheduling my life around the schedule of networks. But back to the point, that is that I don't know which news network is currently the most anti-conservative mouthpiece of Democrats. Fox is treated like the mouthpiece of the Republican party, which they may or may not be depending upon the currently practiced ideologies of Republicans in power of the official Republican party. But which is the current outlet of anti-conservative rhetoric? It also needs to be lampooned if such is to be done for its opposite.

Fox News tends to be big on rhetoric over reporting facts and loves to cover those one-off stories about the man who jumped off a bridge on a dare or the like (the fluff/"human interest" stories).

The interesting dynamic is that Fox News has done a very effective job at setting the tone and pace of "news reporting". Almost like as if CNN watches Fox News and changes the spin but still report from what Fox News has said despite that not everything Fox News reports is anywhere near accurate or true. Take that recent NAACP video clip, for example; Fox News ran it first then everyone else essentially ran with Fox News' story rather than actually doing the necessary research on it. Same with ACORN.

But yeah, when they're not reporting false news, they tend to do the wacky human interest stories.

But which is the current outlet of anti-conservative rhetoric? It also needs to be lampooned if such is to be done for its opposite.

well, at least I can tell you that Star Trek and Mythbusters are anti-conservative and anti-creationist

Star Trek, yes it often is. Mythbusters, not so much, I'd say it's a morally neutral show. Yes, the hosts James and Adam do act like fruits, which is the most you could accuse them of being anti-conservative about, but even so both of them are each married to women.

well, my idea is that mythbusters is anti-creationist while star trek is anti-conservative, at least from what I can tell from mythbusters it seems so, when it comes to star trek, its liberal bias is very clear.

Nope, Mythbuster's isn't even anti-creationist. Perhaps it sounds like it would be to people who consider the Bible, particularly Genesis 1-11, to merely be a "myth". However, the show has nothing to do with argumentation against scripture. Rather, it has to do with blowing stuff up with explosives and trying to determine plausibility of things like making a lead balloon that floats, Confederate rockets, jumping in an elevator at the end of free fall, and other things of that type. If they were to attack the Bible, then they'd lose a chunk of their audience.

What I do see as a huge issue is a very anti-science vibe. Like I said, the newspapers talking about evolution versus creationism is very much an attack on science as a type of religion—believing that the scientific method is some type of religious belief. And it’s not!

That kind of attack absolutely is damaging science exploration across the whole country. I do think that’s a significant problem. And until we can get our head out of the sand and realize that science isn’t about truth—it’s why this debate about the “theory of evolution” bugs the hell out of me. What scientists mean by theory is very different than what people think.

People want science to give them these ultimate truths. When of course it’s never going to do that.

No scientist will ever even tell you that he’ll guarantee the sun will come up tomorrow because that’s not a scientific statement. He can say it’ll come up because the evidence supports it and he can say he’s 99.99999% sure that it’s going to come up, but something could always happen.

And that willingness to have your mind changed – which is basically what that is – that willingness to change, to see something different based on the evidence, that’s deeply scientific, and it’s deeply creative, and I don’t think enough people realize how creative science is as a field.

I suppose you may have a point, however, the show claims to be about scientific skepticism and to put to the tes,t beliefs or claims (myths), and I know it is just a show for entertainment purposes and probably it shouldn't be taken seriously. They have refused to do things related to the supernatural, as it was requested in their website a while ago.


Although, Adam Savage has stated his position regarding creationism.

http://www.geekyramblings.net/2008/10/0 ... eationism/

Hey, what if their news wasn't false? How would you like to live in the world they portray?

It's not much better than the actual world we live in. The only problem is that they side with giving too much power to corporations and certain religious sects and work for denying rights for the individual but use effective rhetoric to appeal to those workers who are being harmed by the policies they support.

It's interesting how one can use the right rhetoric to sell things to people who don't stand to benefit from such policies. Fox News would be happy if our economy was more like China's in terms of workers' rights and benefits...or in other words, if a Foxconn factory existed here in the capacity it does in China, they'd say it was a good thing and praise the workers and continue the empty rhetoric of praising such abusive work conditions and requirements.

Nope, Mythbuster's isn't even anti-creationist. Perhaps it sounds like it would be to people who consider the Bible, particularly Genesis 1-11, to merely be a "myth". However, the show has nothing to do with argumentation against scripture. Rather, it has to do with blowing stuff up with explosives and trying to determine plausibility of things like making a lead balloon that floats, Confederate rockets, jumping in an elevator at the end of free fall, and other things of that type. If they were to attack the Bible, then they'd lose a chunk of their audience.

So, is it more the policies they advocate which such rather than the truth of falseness of the rhetoric which they employ to conclude improper measures?