The History Channel Really IS propaganda

[Neecy]

Okay, this is weird but true - the night before last, a friend gave me a copy of the four-part PBS American Experience program on Roosevelt. I watched it yesterday morning (all four and a half hours of it - it's excellent).

I'm now watching The History Channels' program on Roosevelt - I know, I know, I should be FDR'd out by now - and they've clearly lifted directly from the PBS program. They use the exact same clips, the same Eleanor voice-overs, the same jumpy sequencing, the same commentators (Kearns-Goodwin, Curtis Roosevelt), the "Dear President Roosevelt" letters are different but they use that device, too. You'd swear it was simply an edited version of the lengthy PBS program.

What the History Channel *does* give us that's different are their crude attacks on the New Deal that appear in the first fifteen minutes of their programming. The personal digs are new, too - about how he was a "loner" for collecting stamps (not generally a group activity, but it was made to make the 'man of the people' a hypocrite because he --- collected stamps. Desperate.

It's been amazing watching this so soon after seeing the PBS program - it really makes the propaganda just jump out at you. Just in time, I suppose, for the Republicans to dismantle the last bits of the New Deal.

[HEyHEY]

1. I've noticed that too

[UTUSN]

7. "Northern aristocrat like ROOSEVELT" - But

the program is being good and fair.

[ironflange]

15. Wait

That's the US History channel. The Canadian one is separate, it's owned by CTV and. . . uh, never mind.

[laura888]

2. I've also noticed the History Channel's bias

Sometimes its oh-so-subtle.

But it is definitely there.

[roguevalley]

3. let them kick him. he will soar over it. he was a god in my family

and he still is. JFK and FDR. Gods in our own time.

[Bluzmann57]

4. Yep. It must be a conspiracy

They don't go along with your point of view so it has to be a conspiracy. Yes indeedy, thats the way it must be.

[Nevernose]

6. I've noticed it w/ a LOT of people, not just pols

The Marquis de Sade, Julius Caesar, the Alamo... The History Channel documentaries takes whatever is salacious, based entirely upon rumor, or sometimes even outright debunked, and presents it as infallible fact. It's sensationalism, a tabloid version of a serious college history text.

And I too doubt there's some anti-liberal conspiracy at work, though I believe wholeheartedly in an advertising attempt to sell "the REAL truth behind ______" Infotainment at its finest.

[Trajan]

8. Call me a fool ...

But I could SWEAR the word 'conspiracy' was not mentioned by the original poster ....

But it WAS mentioned by you .... why ? ...

[Bluzmann57]

12. Ok I admit the word "conspiracy" was never used

But "propaganda" is a pretty heavy word as well. Just because a program doesn't agree with a person's point of view doesn't always make it "propaganda". But then I'm just a middle aged dumb ass who has seen more than his share of shit in his life and is now jaded toward ALL claims of "propaganda". So I guess I'm not credible at all. And I will not call you a fool. You are probably book smarter than I am.

[The Magistrate]

16. The Problem With 'The History Channel', Sir, Is Two-Fold

First, its presentations are appallingly superficial, to the point it is hard top escape concluding that the persons preparing them really have little knowledge themselves.

Second, its presentations are generally geared to a claim of presenting some "hidden truth" about a matter, though in generally all instances this "hidden truth" is either in fact the general consensus of serious study on the matter in question, or something of no real signifigance at all to the matter in question, or the product of some crank without any sound basis for asserting any view on the matter in question.

About the only reason to watch the thing is the relative profusion of archival footage, and even then, it is a great help to know already what you are looking at, as this is very often mis-labeled, or used to illustrate things actually occuring at a different time and place than the origin of footage....

[Neecy]

19. points well made

Now that the program has, on three separate occasions, painted a poor picture of Roosevelt on the race question prior to 1940 (making him look either racist or politically cowardly), it'll be interesting to see if they balance the portrait with his creation of the EEOC or the progress made in integrating the Navy during WWII.

[glitch]

20. People who deny all conspiracy theories without evaluation are as ignorant

as people who accept all conspiracy theories without evaluation.

[AlCzervik]

5. At my house we call it the Hitler channel and they are leaning far right

about a year or so ago they aired or were going to air a show about how LBJ had Kennedy killed, it was based on this book

look at the last name of the author, yes thats his father. Anyhow President Ford and Carter and Jack Valenti along with the Johnson family wrote a letter to the history channel asking them not to air it.

[Nevernose]

9. The original name actually was "The World War Two Channel"

Conceived as a spin-off of A&E, since their WWII documentaries were so popular. They still fill much of their daytime programming with that, and we've finally seen a let-up on OBL shows, thank God.

[tomreedtoon]

17. Wrong! "The All-Hitler Channel."

MST3K called it correctly. Find the guy who runs the channel and I bet he has a collection of Lugers and offers big money for authentic Japanese katana.

[Nevernose]

18. LOL!

You're probably right Maybe I should start posting fake Katanas on E-Bay?

[Cha]

10. That's admirable that you

watch all that history on FDR. That's what it takes is someone who has just seen one version and then to get a slightly different take from the history channel.

[Cleita]

11. They lost me when they aired a program on Doston,

the murdering warlord of Afghanistan. The reporter painted him as an all right guy who probably needed to make hard decisions because the the lawlessness of the place.

HELLOOOOO! He is one of the lawless!

Also, they were putting ads on other channels saying that Roosevelt was doing what he did in secret. Duh, oh, have the right wing looked in their closet lately?

[Maccagirl]

13. The History Channel aired their "President's"

series today (short 15 minute bios of each one) and they were much harder on the Dems than Repubs. One thing they said during the JFK piece was "He had the dictatorial leader (Diem) of South Vietnam assassinated." Not "alledgedly" or "it's been said"-just a straightforward declaration of fact. It was a jaw-dropping moment. Isn't the History Channel owned by ABC-the people who have a hissy over ANY conspiracy theories?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. They also said many years ago that Archbishop Romero of El Salvador

was assassinated by the left-wing guerillas. Now NOBODY at the time said that. Even the MSM admitted that he was killed by the right wing death squads (you know, the guys who operated in the open--in the middle of a crowded church service in this case--and somehow never got caught) for his defense of the peasants.

That's when I decided that they were not to be trusted.

[readmoreoften]

21. It's insanely biased and testosteroned out

Come on, that whole series THE CONQUERORS! was so obnoxious. They presented them as if they were a bunch of pro-wrestlers: THE CONQUERORS! SEE THEM KILL! SEE THEM CONQUER! TO THE EXXXTREME!!!