History Channel vs. National Geographic Channel

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed that National Geographic always seems to be from a skeptics point of view on subject matter that regards UFOs and other paranormal phenomena while History Channel seems to be from a believers point of view?

I know National Geographic is based on natural topics but why create a series called "Is it real?" and then basically imply that every topic has nothing to do with paranormal? Maybe they should change the name of the series to "It isn't real".


History Channel seems to look at both sides without having a bias during the show but then at the end it seems they would have you believe in the paranormal theory.

Anyway the Is it real? series is really starting to piss me off lately


Any thoughts on this guys and gals?

[edit on 2/22/2007 by Frank Black]




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I also think National Geographic seems to be more of a skeptic but I think that is really just because they're just trying to prove is it real or not while
The History Channel is trying to present the evidence and let you form your own opinion.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I didn't know a national geographic channel existed...

I do get the history channel, though, and I have watched several documentaries on it, and have *coughdownloadedcough* a few that they did, as well. Most of them seem to me to be quite impartial and just state the facts.

I think it may have to do with the different point of view of each channel. The History Channel, as its name suggests, presents history. They present a set of facts, ideally without bias or attempt to moralise or justify one side or anything like that. They do a reasonably good job of this. The National Geographic is (I'm assuming here, since I haven't seen it, but I have read many of their magazines) a scientific organization. As such, they are going to show you a set of facts, and then they are going to try to explain those facts scientifically. It is a subtle, but relevant point.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I have seen a couple of History Channel docs and two from National Geographic (I just found out they had a channel). Well I think that you should go into an investigation being a skeptic. If you go in believing that UFO's did it(just saying hypothetically), then people tend to bend the facts they find to fit what they believe. But you go in as a skeptic, and you find evidence, you can come to a logical conclusion, which sometimes might be UFO's.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
when you look at the big picture here it isnt which tv show is better. they are both crap because they are controlled by our government. when the country that controlls what we do so much that they even need to controll what we watch on learning channels i think there is something that needs to be changed. whatever they want us to see will be shown. we will never see the real truth because the government shows us images to get us ready for a war that shouldnt be fough not animals having sex.





new topics
 
2

log in

join