Open Letter to the History Channel
Dear History Channel,
I wanted to start this letter by politely saying: WHAT THE FUCK? As you may or may not know the name of your network (”The History Channel” in case you forgot) sort of implies that your programming should at least relate to history. Don’t you agree? I may be completely off base here, but I would think that when TV viewers hear this name they have certain expectations, and preconceptions as to what your programming is going to be.
For example, majority of normal people (may they rot in hell for all eternity) will avoid your network like a plague because they are generally allergic to knowledge and anything remotely educational fills them with fear and doubt. On the other hand people whose IQ is not a single digit number (and sadly it seems that we are a dying breed) actually seek your channel out for precisely the kind of programing which scares off the mainstream sheeple. I really think that well made documentaries, be it about ancient civilizations, weapons, world war 2 or more contemporary stuff are much more interesting than the Reality TV bullshit that many of my coworkers enjoy so much.
Only recently, there has been preciously little of actual History on my History Channel! In the past I had your channel running in the background most of the day, and whenever I looked at TV there was something interesting on. And even if it was not interesting, it did not provoke nausea in me. These days I usually end up flipping channels in disgust because I just can’t stand the crap you are airing in the evening sometimes.
Let me ask you a question: what do shows like Ice Truckers, Axemen, It’s Tougher in Alaska, and Monster Quest have to do with History? Absolutely nothing! Why are they on your network then? What is the purpose? In case you have failed to notice, these are pretty much reality shows. Reality shows without promiscuous sex, relationship drama and attractive women in bikinis. Reality shows about grizzled, overweight truckers, lumberjacks and Bigfoot enthusiasts. I’m sorry but even big fans of reality tv genre are probably turned off by this shit.
Here is a newsflash: reality shows suck ass. People who watch reality shows and enjoy them are a fucking IDIOTS. Idiots do not watch History Channel because knowledge is like Kryptonite to them. It is that simple. Who are you pandering to by making new seasons of these titles? Do I need to remind you who your core audience is? It’s predominantly white collar intellectuals, people from the academia, college students and history buffs. My guess is that 98% of these people have no interest in watching a reality show about dim-witted blue collar physical laborers who can barely string together a coherent sentence. Can you see why this is a bad idea?
Why can’t you stick to what everyone expects you to do - and that is documentaries. The reality TV is going to scare away your core viewers, and it won’t attract new ones because dumb people don’t watch your network - and this is the only kind of viewers you could possibly catch watching this crap.
And while you are at it, can you please ditch the supernormal shit? How many shows can you make about NOT catching Bigfoot, or NOT proving or disproving the existence of ghosts, monsters or UFO’s? This shit was awesome when I watched it on Discovery Channel when I was 14. But then Discovery decided that they want to spent most of their time airing shows about bikers, grease monkeys, and home improvement shows. So I stopped watching it. Now you are doing the same fucking thing.
Related Posts:
August 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm (9863) [Quote]
I’ve always been pissed when stations start doing shit like that. The shows may be all right but it’s just stupid. the worst offender is the weather channel. Instead of weather coverage 24/7 like they are supposed to, they create stupid shows about people who lived through storms. Big fucking deal, I want to see if it’s gonna hail or not. They need to take a lesson from court tv, who changed their name to true.tv so they could do more reality programming.
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 1:25 pm (9864) [Quote]
90% of the watchable stuff is in the “premium” discovery and history channels which may cost an extra $20+ to get them packaged with the “premium” MTV channels.
The specials are still good on regular Discover and History, but the series are crap. Don’t get me wrong, an episode or two of people catching crabs is informative even if it is a reality show, but they are going crazy with the number and topics.
Ugh. Don’t get me started on the “weather” channel. Come on…weather related movies?
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pm (9865) [Quote]
Precisely - first episode of any of these shows is pretty much like an inside look on these jobs that most people don’t even know about. But there is really no way to stretch this sort of thing into a series. How many times can they show the same dude driving the same truck on the same patch of ice?
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm (9866) [Quote]
I think you just called my mother an idiot… But it’s ok, because I agree with every single word
This is exactly [one of the reasons] why I stopped watching TV. Good shows a too hard to come by nowadays. And when they do broadcast a TV show I like, they rarely broadcast the episodes in order. That, and commercials.
The only thing reality shows accomplish is making dumb people dumber, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that eventually leads to our demise. I’m also kinda against lots of sports events. I mean sure, the Olympic opening ceremony in China was cool, but from what I heard it cost like $800 million! Just imagine what you could do with that kind of money. And they blow it on a few hours of entertainment!
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 2:26 pm (9867) [Quote]
Uh! >_< I guess I called like half my family idiots too. But I guess that's what they get for watching these shows.
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm (9868) [Quote]
I don’t know if the History channel you have there is the same as here, but I would have to assume it is, for the simple fact that the programming is just as shitty. The one here plays Jag. JAG…how does that have anything to do with History…I have no clue.
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 6:26 pm (9869) [Quote]
Hear hear, I second (or whatever number we’re at) this. I remember the days when TLC was ‘The Learning Channel’. Then they just keep adding more ‘When escalators attack” type shows till they finally had to stop calling themselves anything to do with ‘Learning’.
Although I did read an interesting article in Discover Magazine about how all these data “Channels” were only created to make money, and that the coming open data market will make it so you just watch the shows you want instead of having to pay extra for some channel because there’s one show on it you like. We’re already seeing this with the on-demand cable shows.
I wish I could find that article so I could remember who said it.
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 9:32 pm (9870) [Quote]
@Kenny - personally I believe that while on-demand programming is definitely the way of the future it will not displace traditional broadcast type networks completely.
For example, sometimes I want to watch TV without anything specific in mind. So I channel surf for a bit until I find something interesting. I might stumble onto a WW2 documentary for example and watch it - but it’s probably not something I would actively seek out when checking the on-demand options.
Similarly, I love to watch [adult-swim] despite the fact that 90% of their programming consists of reruns of shows that I basically memorized by now. I watch them because they are on, and because I love these shows. Would I actually pick old episodes of Familly Guy, Aqua Teen, Robot Chicken and Home Movies as my evening entertainment from an on-demand service? Probably not.
So while I do want to be able to watch an episode of my favorite show at any time of day or night via on-demand, I also sometimes just want to watch whatever is on my favorite channel without actually thinking about it, or making choices. I believe many other people are this way as well.
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm (9871) [Quote]
What about on-demand playlists? It would just pick from a list of your favorites, selected by you or by software that’s been tracking your viewing habits…
Posted usingAugust 14th, 2008 at 11:25 pm (9872) [Quote]
Hear hear! It would be so cool if History Channel actually listened. But of course, you know they won’t.
Anyway, it seems like all forms of entertainment are going down this process of “dumbening” for the masses. Games too, are progressing this way, which is why I’m not really raving about any new games, but instead keep replaying golden oldies. And I can’t wait for Good Old Games, a distribution plaform for old games, to go live.
Even though I have cable, I rarely sit in front of the TV now, except to catch up on sports (ie. soccer). All my entertainment comes through my PC. I just discovered Miro too, which is a cool way to aggregate video feeds, and it will mean even more time away from the cable box.
Those documentaries on the torrent cloud look mighty fine now…
Posted usingAugust 15th, 2008 at 6:24 am (9874) [Quote]
I think that we should create a virtual society of people interested in fair content, intelligent programming, good games and cool TV shows and movies. We would call it along the lines of “The Dead Poets Society” and we would fund it by canceling our registration to our current TV providers and creating the programs ourselves. It would be cheap because nobody buys that kind of program anyway.
By the way, my gf and myself have found a great use of digital TV. We begin watching a show at the pre-generic. We pause for 30 minutes and eat, browse internet or read something intellectual. Then we put play again. Every commercial we pass in x16 speed. It makes the viewing experience so much better.
Posted using