It seems CanWest has successfully purchased AllianceAtlantis and its cluster of specialty channels, of which one of the jewels, we are told, is History Television.
We were observing the other day that the "jewel" is paste. Okay, is crap. But some reflection on why it’s crap seems needed.
1. Who runs it
I looked into History Television when it launched, and I was struck by how it was run almost entirely by refugees from the clear-outs at News and Current Affairs at CBC. They all seemed to be people convinced that Current Affairs was important, and History… well, it was a little down-market for them.
You could see it in who they put on the air. History Television hosts have almost always been second-tier news or current affairs personalities. None gives the slightest aura of having any interest or authority when it comes to history. I think they even had Rick Mercer hosting an early program, and it even made Mercer look awkward and out of place. The other night I saw Anne Medina, former CBC newsreader, gamely “hosting” History on Film -- and the film was “Out of Sight,” an Elmore Leonard shoot-em-up with George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. Not a bad film, actually, but real history geeks could have found a hundred ways to have fun with it – the history of Elmore Leonard, the history of terrible J-Lo movies, the history of ghetto thugs in movies. Poor Anne Medina sitting there so stiffly, you could see her thinking, I’m a serious journalist, damnit, why do I have to lend my prestige to this stuff? Why indeed?
2 No identity.
Apart from rent-a-host floaters like the above, History Television has never projected the slightest on-air presence as a community of people who care about their subject. Compare Discovery, with flagship programs like @discovery.ca and Daily Planet. 22 Minutes can parody Natasha all it likes, but those people and programs establish an identity for the science channel. Discovery has its share of dreck, but it has always had a presence based on on-air people who convey that they know and care about science. (With all its Egyptology and archaeology, Discovery seems able to scoop up most of the engrossing history programming you would expect History to show.)
Space Channel, APTN, CityTV, they all find ways to personalize their networks. There is a little volunteer-run program called Structures on my local cable channel. It’s about Toronto’s built heritage, and it’s a hundred times more engaging than anything I have ever seen on History Television. The kids at Structures care about their subject.
History Television feels like it is run by people who don’t much care for history and who fear and avoid people who might show some passion for the subject.
3 Dumbing Down the Audience
That early and never-shaken reputation as “The Hitler Channel” reflected History Television’s lack of respect for its audience. One had the impression they were putting on programming they would not themselves watch, out of a belief that people interested in history were old geezers who would watch endless black-and-white documentaries of the invasion of Poland. I’ve no problem with History Television running movies or old TV series – good on them, actually. But their choices shout out that they aren’t seriously programming material a historically-literate audience might appreciate. They are just mining the licence. CSI is now on History Television -- except you have already seen it everywhere else. Everybody Loves Raymond is probably next – and they’ll try to get Laura di Batista over from CityTV to “host.”
4 Dumbing Down the Filmmakers
What’s worst, I fear, is History Television’s effect on the filmmaking community in Canada. I know lots of film makers around the country who are genuinely interested in history and historical filmmaking. What I don’t know is any who feel that History Television is supporting them or stretching them to do the best possible work. More the opposite, I suspect: do it cheap, do it lowbrow, go for cheap sentiment over thought and controversy, don’t take it too seriously or provide a podium for people who care more than we do.
Am I wrong about any of this? I don't survey History Television; my impressions are based on just what I catch. Some great little programs got under the radar. There may be some now. But I came across Structures without seeking it out. Hard to believe I just miss everything worthwhile on HT.
