History Channel needs an intervention...Ancient Aliens...SERIOUSLY!

[Christopher]

People always blame the networks for their content, but ultimately it's the viewers who are responsible. Commercial networks need ratings to sell ad time and stay in business. So the shows that the audience wants to watch get renewed, and the shows the audience doesn't watch get cancelled. You can start out with the best of intentions to be a smart, educational cable network, but if your ratings tank and the advertisers won't buy time, you have no choice but to switch to more profitable programming if you want to stay in business. And that's why educational channels end up degenerating into pseudoscience and reality dreck -- because, sadly, that's what the public wants.

This is why public television is so important. The only way educational television can really work is if it isn't dependent on advertiser dollars to stay in business. This is why we need more government funding for PBS, not less like Mitt Romney wanted. And maybe more government involvement in other ways too. When I was growing up, there were FCC regulations saying that networks had to feature a certain amount of educational content, and so there were more shows out there that were actually informative.

[Shawnster]

Christopher wrote:

---

People always blame the networks for their content, but ultimately it's the viewers who are responsible. Commercial networks need ratings to sell ad time and stay in business. So the shows that the audience wants to watch get renewed, and the shows the audience doesn't watch get cancelled. You can start out with the best of intentions to be a smart, educational cable network, but if your ratings tank and the advertisers won't buy time, you have no choice but to switch to more profitable programming if you want to stay in business. And that's why educational channels end up degenerating into pseudoscience and reality dreck -- because, sadly, that's what the public wants.

That's the same thing with every niche channel. They all eventually break out of their niche and become more generalized in order to attract viewers. That's why we have all kinds of MTVs and VH1s.

[sojourner]

The Weather Channel did fine for years until NBC bought them and decided the profit margin was too low. Now it shows movies and reality shows like everyone else.

[BillJ]

Ancient Aliens is entertaining bullshit.

[degra]

it isn't just the history channel that had strayed from their original creation. Cable has become littered with a bunch of channels filled with nothing but crap. I got rid of cable and have no regrets. Tv broadcast and cable imo has never been worse.

[hyzmarca]

Stargate is a documentary.

[Mister Fandango]

My biggest problem about the show is the same problem I have with shows like Mythbusters. The basic theory for everything is "well, if a handful of guys today couldn't do what these ancient peoples did after a couple hours of half-assed effort and no real driving force to get the job done properly, well, IT HAD TO BE ALIENS, OMFG!!!"

For comedy value, the crazy ass Greek guy with the fucked up hair's pronunciation of "technology" never fails to make me laugh. I don't even know how to replicate it in text.

[RJDiogenes]

Christopher wrote:

---

People always blame the networks for their content, but ultimately it's the viewers who are responsible.

Exactly. Most movies and TV shows are garbage because the audience demands garbage.

[Shawnster]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

Exactly. Most movies and TV shows are garbage because the audience demands garbage.

Demands? No. Accepts and is entertained by? You got it. It is called the lowest common denominator for a reason.

[Christopher]

Mister Fandango wrote:

---

My biggest problem about the show is the same problem I have with shows like Mythbusters. The basic theory for everything is "well, if a handful of guys today couldn't do what these ancient peoples did after a couple hours of half-assed effort and no real driving force to get the job done properly, well, IT HAD TO BE ALIENS, OMFG!!!"

The Mythbusters would never say anything like that. Usually they've been pretty good at assessing the veracity of claims of ancient technology, and they've often verified those claims or at least determined them to be plausible. And they've been known to go back and retest things to get more accurate data. So please don't lump them together with the idiots who'd say things like that.

[Forbin]

Yes, Mythbusters always has a 40% possibility of science!

[Mister Fandango]

Christopher wrote:

---

The Mythbusters would never say anything like that. Usually they've been pretty good at assessing the veracity of claims of ancient technology, and they've often verified those claims or at least determined them to be plausible. And they've been known to go back and retest things to get more accurate data. So please don't lump them together with the idiots who'd say things like that.

Despite your stoic defense, they do do that very thing, and they do it often. The most notable example I can think of off the top of my head is the Archimedes death ray. "Well, we got a bunch of kids to stand here with some crap mirrors we handed them, and golly gosh gee, after a couple hours (if that) of trying, they just couldn't do it. MYTH BUSTED!!!!!!!!"

Seriously. A bunch of kids, several of which weren't even in their teens, was enough for them to ''prove'' it was completely impossible. Not that I'm saying that it was possible or that was the only thing they tried, it's just a shining example of the half-assed crap they pull far too often. It's downright embarrassing and every bit as asinine as what the clowns on this show say every single episode.

The idea of trial and error, dedication, discipline, and the shedding of blood, sweat, and tears in pursuit of getting the job done right are all things that are completely alien to MythBusters.

[J. Allen]

Snowjourner wrote:

---

The Weather Channel did fine for years until NBC bought them and decided the profit margin was too low. Now it shows movies and reality shows like everyone else.

In their defense, they're just not needed like they were even a decade ago. Now, go back to when Hurricane Andrew was pounding the coastline, the internet was still way too new for most people, and they got their information from local stations, and the Weather Channel.

Nowadays, I don't need the Weather Channel. I have dozens of local sources, the internet, or access via my phone, right now, in a split instant. With all of that, a dedicated weather channel doesn't have a chance.

[Klaus]

I remember being in grad history classes 10-15 years ago and hearing everyone complain bitterly about the HC being "All Hitler All the Time" and about how it never showed enough variety. Now that seems like a golden age by comparison to what they show now. I'm always kinda shocked when I tune by and there's actual history on... most of that is on H2 now, like no more music on MTV/VH1... maybe we need a Skiffy2 to actually get any sf on!

[RJDiogenes]

^^ If you look at History Channel On Demand, the history shows are listed under "Specials."

Shawnster wrote:

---

Demands? No. Accepts and is entertained by? You got it. It is called the lowest common denominator for a reason.

They seem more demanding to me these days.