History Channel - right wing?

[joycem10]

I was looking on Slate for some info on the history channel given the recent threads on network/cable channels and came across the article contrasting the history channel and PBS:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2064540

I found it interesting that the writer seems to accept as common knowledge that the history channel has a right wing perspective.

Heres a couple of quotes...

"Watching PBS against the History Channel, as I did the other night, it becomes clear that PBS is at least as absolutist as its famously right-wing rival. "

"But it's the History Channel that must really bother PBS, and not just because the upstart flaunts its illiberal jingoism and paranoia."

"famously right-wing"?, "illiberal jingoism and paranoia"?

Now I understand that Slate looks at culture from a decidedly left wing viewpoint, but the thought that the History Channel has a right wing viewpoint comes as a surprise to me, possibily because I am to the right of center in my political leanings. Ive been watching the History Channel about since it began broadcasting.

Has anyone else ever heard anyone assert that the History Channel has a right wing slant? Do you believe it has such a slant? If so, why?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

If the History Channel is biased against anything, it is the Luftwaffe.

 

[carlosMM]

I have seen quite a few History Channel shows. And I was appalled every time it was a topic I knew anything about, with ONE SOLE exception.

there was a show about Custers Last Stand in which they accurately (I read the papers!) portrayed the latest in scientific research into it. The show was, nonetheless, horrible, repetitive, loaded with stereotyps, full of (non-hanging) cliff-habgers and sensationalistic...

Except for this show, I detected a notivable trend to paint the US as the White Knight in History, the ignore non-US acheivements and to portray the few acknowledged as 'masterstrokes' of a few genius minds abroad. Contrast: US achievements are all achieved by 'normal' people. Leaves open what the US genius is capable of producing.......


So yes, it appears quite conservative. And when I mentioned that to my American friends they either reacted with disgust to the suggestion (it is AMERICAN, liberals are UN-AMERICAN!) or a knowing nod and shake of the head.

 

[IglooDame]

I've watched the occasional History Channel show (perhaps one every month or two) and my inaccuracy/bias detector did not light up. I haven't heard it from anyone else, but then again I rarely discuss the History Channel with anyone.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

It really depends on the show. I saw a mini-series that portrayed the American rebel militia as basically blood thirsty and cowardly when facing the British regular army. Just yesterday they did a program about the history of rubber… not sure if you can be bias about that!

 

[thestonesfan]

I haven't noticed anything particularly biased. A lot of the stuff they talk about is too boring to have a slant.

Mail Call is cool though.

 

[Dr. Yoshi]

If the History Channel were as right-wing as they say it is, then why does the History Channel have a series called The History of Sex which contains mildly pornographic images from throughout history?

 

[joycem10]

I have seen quite a few History Channel shows. And I was appalled every time it was a topic I knew anything about, with ONE SOLE exception.

there was a show about Custers Last Stand in which they accurately (I read the papers!) portrayed the latest in scientific research into it. The show was, nonetheless, horrible, repetitive, loaded with stereotyps, full of (non-hanging) cliff-habgers and sensationalistic...

Except for this show, I detected a notivable trend to paint the US as the White Knight in History, the ignore non-US acheivements and to portray the few acknowledged as 'masterstrokes' of a few genius minds abroad. Contrast: US achievements are all achieved by 'normal' people. Leaves open what the US genius is capable of producing.......


So yes, it appears quite conservative. And when I mentioned that to my American friends they either reacted with disgust to the suggestion (it is AMERICAN, liberals are UN-AMERICAN!) or a knowing nod and shake of the head.

Im pretty sure the article was looking at it from within the context of the American Political Spectrum.

Plus which the History Channel is an American channel catering to an American audience. I doubt they care how they appear to foriegners. They have "History International" for that.

If the History Channel were as right-wing as they say it is, then why does the History Channel have a series called The History of Sex which contains mildly pornographic images from throughout history?

They also have a show called "strung out" or something like that which chronicals the history of drug use.

 

[slothman]

I haven't seen it as very biased. I do see "Discovery Time" or whatever it's called as pretty right wing though. There are lot's of programs about Saddam being evil. It'sn't that that is wrong per se but that they don't give other information about stuff like where he got his WMD's 15 years ago.

 

[Fetus4188]

It really depends on the show. I saw a mini-series that portrayed the American rebel militia as basically blood thirsty and cowardly when facing the British regular army. Just yesterday they did a program about the history of rubber… not sure if you can be bias about that!

I saw that

Most of their programs are nearly impossible to have any sort of bias and if there is a possibility I never see any clear bias.

Go R. Lee Ermey!

 

[andrewgprv]

History Channel is right wing. I have had to stop watching it because so many of it's programs are repetitive garbage. But they still do have some good programs on History International.

 

[Mescalhead]

If the history channel were "right wing" they probably wouldn't stay on the air long. It is just as timid and PC as anything else on T.V. Though I do like some shows. History International is more interesting. Especially because they don't show Modern Marvels. How is that historical, except for the one about the Colloseum? How the Colloseum could be considered modern is beyond me.

 

[The Omega]

It may be biased, but it's a heck of alot less biased then what we're taught in my schools.....(Texas played a major role in WW2. The nazis would ahve won if it weren't for Texas. Nazis are bad people. All Germans are nazis. Germany is a bad place. Germany is in Europe, which is also a bad, violent place. Etc.)

 

[Moss]

I don't think it's right wing...there's only so much slant you can put on history.

 

[Yom]

I haven't seen any evidence it's right wing, though I'm sure a lot of its viewers (and writers) are.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

i don't think it has any bias. only a left wing nutjob would think so

mail call does rule.

 

[Sinapus]

Dunno, but R. Lee has serious issues with watermelons.

 

[luiz]

Maybe Slate is biased?

Edit:Yep, it's definately biased. I just checked the main page, and the top story is named "Kerry Closes the Deal", with a huge pic of Kerry bordering cult of personality.

This site is clearly left-biased, so there is no reason to take what they say very seriously.

 

[Flintlock]

I watch the History Channel occasionally, and I haven't noticed anything biased about it (besides the fact that it's very pro- american)

Just yesterday they did a program about the history of rubber… not sure if you can be bias about that!

I actually watched that show! The problem with Modern Marvels is that they ran out of subject matter a long time ago, so they have resorted to doing things like rubber, the colosuem and "engineering disasters" (which was actually a really interesting string of shows)

 

[Norlamand]

Maybe Slate is biased?

That is the real question isn't it?
Slate is so far to the left that anything short of Chairman Mao appears right winged.