Shootout

I haven't seen that episode, but I've seen others. I have generally soured on the History Channel a bit. I believe that as they have evolved their programing they have begun to pander to their audience. I first noticed this a while back when watching the silly UFO shows where they act as if aliens visiting the earth is a forgone conclusion.

If you watch shows like "Mail Call" they wear their bias on their sleeves. This I don't mind so much, because it's honest and out in the open. I don't, however, think this is always the case.

As I started paying closser attention to the details surrounding some of the particulars of some of their Civil War shows I noticed that they tended to choose from ambiguous or conflicting character descriptions those depictions of events and people that made for the best telling of the story. From show to show and from story to story these descriptions sometimes conflicted but were always presented as fact.

On other boards, people who are much better aquainted with the facts than I mock them for the skew in their focus of and depictions of WWII events.

Particularly for modern history, the desire to depict events in a pleasing way should be more strong. Of course they wouldn't come out and depict "bad guys" as Satan worshiping, child sacrificing necrophiles, but in the little details they make the account more pleasing for the audience.

I like the shows that they present, and I still watch the History Channel probably more than any other. What I don't do anymore is accept their depiction of facts without third party confirmation.

The most honest telling of history and a TV channel that depends on ratings to sell advertising and make money aren't after the same thing.