Yesterday, we had Kevin Kostner’s bore-a-thon Wyatt Earp. Last week it was the Harrison Ford crapfest Clear and Present Danger. On the History Channel. WTF?
Is this going to become a habit? Showing pan and scan, commercial ridden movies that have almost no relation to any actual events? If I want to watch movies, there is a channel called HBO. Is it wrong to expect actual History on the Hitler Channel?
I agree the channel shows sucky movies but my main gripe is they take shows and rename them to show it again.
The thing that bugs me is that the broadcasters have to make specific claims about what kind of station they are going to be to get their license. It seems a lot of these channels very quickly start changing their focus to be more profitable ie they all turn into old movie/rerun channels.
It really should be easier to yoink the license when they don’t fulfill their mandate.
I didn’t think you needed a license for cable or satellite programming.
I wasn’t aware there were those kind of restrictions on licensing a cable station. Do you know what the basis of the oversight is?
Hmm, guess it’s only a Canadian thing. Our cable system is pretty monopolized, especially in specific regions. Also with our spread out population “cable tv” is really almost the only television people watch. The CRTC rules on which new channels get picked up much in the same way you would get a broadcast license. They supposedly ensure local channel inclusion and variety that reflects public interest- while protecting channels already on from upstarts.
Cable TV does not have the same restrictions or requirements as broadcast TV.
Broadcast stations have to renew their licenses with the FCC on a regular basis. Cable TV does not. Broadcast stations have to offer time to political candidates for advertising at the LUR, or Lowest Unit Rate. Cable TV does not.
There are some regulations, like cable TV must provide a certain amount of closed-captioned programming a year, and I believe by 2006 all programming must be closed-captioned, but the FCC does not have the authority to yank the licenses of cable networks, namely, because they’re not licensed through the FCC to begin with.
(ivylass, with 15 years experience working in broadcasting)
Why exactly are you drawing comparisons between the History Channel and Hitler in your OP?
And come on, if they didn’t show movies sometimes their audience would divebomb. Granted, some of the movies are less than historically accurate, and they should monitor the content of the movies they show, but it’s not unreasonable to show films every once in a while.
The History Channel when through a spate of showing many, many, many … many, many programs concering Hitler and Nazis. So much so, that it became nicknamed the Hitler Channel.
The History Channel shows an inordinate amount of WWII-related programming, Hitler’s Women (Eva Braun, that movie director, Wagner’s daughter, etc) Hitler’s illnesses, Hitler’s childhood, Hitler’s Generals, the battles, compared to other conflicts, such as Vietnam or Korea or the Civil War. So, sometimes the History Channel is referred to as the Hitler Channel. It’s a comment on the lack of variety of programming, that’s all.
Or, what Homebrew said. 
What really pisses me off is that their documentaries are getting worse and worse. I sat through one on Christmas night Hell: The Devil’s Dominion that was supposed to be a history of the devil, and could have been very interesting, if it was clear that the producers took more than ten minutes to put that piece of crap together.
Thanks ivylass, that is what I thought, but I really don’t know enough about cable to have come right out with the claim.
Got a nickname for A&E? Seems all it shows are programs about crime and criminals, with a strong emphasis on the mafia. I’m not sure how this qualifies either as “art” or “entertainment”. They’ve even devolved in “Growing up Gotti” Yech.
Well, I don’t claim to know everything there is to know about FCC regulations, but I believe I’ve managed to absorb some knowledge from working in the industry and through osmosis. 
None for A&E at this moment, but I call TNT the “Law & Order Channel” and the Lifetime network the “Meredith Baxter Gets the Crap Knocked Out of Her Network”. Not as catchy (and kind of outdated since I haven’t seen a Meredith Baxter movie in years), but it works.
guess you did’t see my second post.
It sucks that the History Channel isn’t living up to its name, but I think that reflects more on our society than anything else. Can a channel dedicated exclusively to the exploration of history succeed? Evidently not or they wouldn’t be selling out in an attempt to garner higher ratings. Sure, there are history buffs out there, but I doubt there’s enough of them to support the HC were it to focus solely on serious historical programming. Methinks the general populace is at fault here - they just ain’t interested in learning anything. They’d rather sit on their asses and watch Michael Bay movies and reality shows. You know, the good stuff. :rolleyes:
Actually, the fact that The Hitler Channel name existed at all for a while is a pretty good indicator that people were watching. The problem is that the audience for a good channel focusing on adult learning (TLC, Discovery, or History Channel as they used to be) is that the people who will watch those fora aren’t the same people who are easily swayed by television advertising.
When was the last time you, or most anyone on this message board, for example, purchased anything on the basis of a television (or any other) commercial? So, the channels listed have to chase advertising revenues. sigh
Well, A&E used to also be known as the Hitler channel, until they created the History channel and moved that programming there.