|
|
Post by yubochur on Dec 19, 2005 22:30:17 GMT -5
The segment about what is coming up on the History Channel, Discovery etc.
Your thoughts......
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Watts on Dec 20, 2005 0:43:21 GMT -5
Thanks for the new poll! I would like to see more of these and everyones comments. If the poll decides "No-Dump it", would everyone still like the schedule on the website weekly?
Related question: What about a "History in the News" segment?
Thank you all very much for your feedback!
Jason
|
|
|
|
Post by Christy on Dec 20, 2005 12:00:17 GMT -5
I like having it on the web site...
|
|
|
|
Post by fcastle25 on Dec 20, 2005 19:07:21 GMT -5
It's nice having it on the podcast. You could put it at the end after the history that way if someone isn't interested in hearing it they can just turn it off. If you do decide to get rid of the segment, please keep listing them on the website.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Langhorst on Dec 31, 2005 16:19:32 GMT -5
Please keep it. It is great. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christian Ankerstjerne on Apr 6, 2006 17:03:14 GMT -5
I voted against.
My main sentiment is that television shows about history are some of the most unreliable sources for historical information. This includes television channels like The History Channel and Discovery.
While I haven't seen the channels myself (they aren't included in my cable package), I frequently have to set people who have seen shows on these channels straight. I don't know if the problem is limited to my area of interest (World War II), but I doubt it.
My general impression of historical documentaries, and my impression of The History Channel and Discovery from the descriptions I've heard from others, leaves much to be desired. The sources are almost never mentioned, and when they are, they are usualy populistic litterature (rarely moving beyond Anthony Beavor - not that his books are without merit, but when it comes to details, such books are far to general).
Furthermore, the accounts given are often some which have been proven wrong literally decades ago. For example, Unternehmen Zitadelle (the battle at Kursk in the summer of 1943) is usually described exclusively from Russian sources. This means, that some of the German casualties listed are grossly overstated (when looking at the number of tanks available to the Germans and comparing them to the claims made by the Russians, several German divisions should have lost more than 100 % of their tanks, and one should even have lost more than 200 % of the tanks they had - without getting reinforcements).
My generalized list of source credibility is (best are first)
* primary sources
* books
* Internet websites
* television shows
* eye witness accounts
Of those five, when writing articles and doing actual research, I would only use primary sources and books, and only the latter if I know the author and his research, and feel confident that he has only used primary sources.
|
|
