Editing History Channel (section)

== Criticism and evaluations ==
Initially, the network received mixed reviews.  In an article from the American Historical Association released about a year into the channel's lifespan, the channel's historical consultant Libby Haight O' Connell noted that professional historians have been enlisted to work on the channel's programs and many letters have come in from viewers both pointing out historical errors and opening up discussion with the channel creators about the events portrayed in the channel's programs.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The History Channel and History Education {{!}} Perspectives on History {{!}} AHA |url=https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/october-1995/the-history-channel-and-history-education |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=www.historians.org |archive-date=February 17, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217210057/https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/october-1995/the-history-channel-and-history-education |url-status=live }}</ref>

However, in recent years the network has been criticized for having a bias towards [[history of the United States|US history]]. Another former sister network, [[Vice on TV|History International]], more extensively covered history outside the US until 2011, when it was re-branded as [[H2 (American TV channel)|H2]] and started broadcasting more material that had to do with US history.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/guide03/explore1.html|title=Time traveler's guide to the Roman Empire|publisher=Channel4.com|quote=The History Channel: The website of the American cable channel has a bias towards American history, as evidenced by Extreme History with Roger Daltrey|access-date=August 4, 2007|archive-date=December 30, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091230162415/http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/guide03/explore1.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Stanley Kutner criticized the network for the series ''[[The Men Who Killed Kennedy]]'' in 2003. Kutner was one of three historians commissioned to review the documentary, which the channel disavowed and never aired again.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hnn.us/articles/4504.html|title=Why the History Channel Had to Apologize for the Documentary that Blamed LBJ for JFK's Murder|first=Stanley|last=Kutner|publisher=History News Network|date=July 4, 2004|access-date=August 4, 2007|quote=The History Channel has made a start in the right direction as it has totally disavowed the program and publicly promised it never will be shown again.|archive-date=August 30, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110830105854/http://hnn.us/articles/4504.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Programs such as ''[[Modern Marvels]]'' have been praised for their presentation of detailed information in an entertaining format.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=28158|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120729141847/http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=28158|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 29, 2012|title=Modern Marvels: Technology|first=Scott|last=Weinberg|work=DVD Talk|date=May 29, 2007|access-date=August 4, 2007|quote=If you're trying to throw your kids a little education, but in a fast-paced and colorful presentation, these "Modern Marvels" series come pretty highly recommended. Then again, I'm a mid-30s guy and I'm learning tons of new stuff from these programs.}}</ref>

Some of the network's series, including ''[[Ice Road Truckers]]'', ''[[Ax Men]]'', and ''[[Pawn Stars]]'', garnered increased viewership ratings in the United States, while receiving criticism over the series' [[Channel drift|nonhistorical nature]]. US Senator [[Chuck Grassley]] is a critic of the channel and its lack of historical or educational programming, showing particular disdain for the latter two programs.<ref>Malone, Noreen (March 20, 2012). [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/brief-history-of-chuck-grassleys-history-with-the-history-channel.html A brief history of Chuck Grassley's history with the History Channel] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120322225624/http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/brief-history-of-chuck-grassleys-history-with-the-history-channel.html |date=March 22, 2012 }}. ''New York'' magazine. Retrieved April 2, 2012.</ref>

Professor Jeremy Stoddard, in his article published in 2010, raised the concern that the productions of the network presented value-laden perspectives which may mislead audiences, a phenomenon he termed "the History Channel effect".<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Stoddard |first=Jeremy D. |date=2010 |title=The History Channel Effect |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003172171009100420 |journal=Phi Delta Kappan |language=en |volume=91 |issue=4 |pages=80 |doi=10.1177/003172171009100420 |s2cid=143989861 |issn=0031-7217 |access-date=July 5, 2022 |archive-date=July 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220705224428/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003172171009100420 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Stoddard also claimed that the History Channel did not contribute to this phenomenon alone, but rather, it was caused by the misperception that [[Documentary film|documentaries]] are "objective sources of history".<ref name=":1" />

In 2011, ''[[Forbes]]'' staffer Alex Knapp wrote, "The History Channel shouldn't run stuff like this 'ancient astronaut' nonsense."<ref name="Knapp">[https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/19/an-archaeologist-watches-the-history-channel-and-questions-the-part-about-the-aliens/#7ab97e483e65 An archaeologist watches the History Channel and questions the part about Ancient Aliens] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210825212211/https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/19/an-archaeologist-watches-the-history-channel-and-questions-the-part-about-the-aliens/#7ab97e483e65 |date=August 25, 2021 }}, ''[[Forbes]]'', Alex Knapp, September 19, 2011. Retrieved July 12, 2017.</ref> ''Forbes'' contributor Brad Lockwood criticized the channel's addition of "programs devoted to monsters, aliens, and conspiracies", attributing a perceived intent of boosting ratings to the network's decision to focus on [[pseudoarchaeology]] instead of documented facts.<ref name="Forbes">{{cite news|last=Lockwood|first=Brad|title=High Ratings Aside, Where's the History on History?|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradlockwood/2011/10/17/high-ratings-aside-wheres-the-history-on-history/|work=Forbes|access-date=March 21, 2012|archive-date=October 19, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019222158/https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradlockwood/2011/10/17/high-ratings-aside-wheres-the-history-on-history/|url-status=live}}</ref> Knapp refers readers to the ''Bad Archaeology'' website's founder Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews who comments, "I find it incredible and frightening that a worldwide distributed television channel ...can broadcast such rubbish as ''[[Ancient Aliens]]''."<ref name="Knapp" /> Archaeologist [[Kenneth Feder]], author of ''Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology'',<ref>Feder, K. (1990). ''Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology''. New York, McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages {{ISBN|978-0078116971}}</ref> called the channel's hosting the [[Ancient astronauts|ancient astronaut]] theory "execrable bullshit".<ref>"[http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/11/07/27/transcript/ Ancient Alien Astronauts: Interview with Ken Feder] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190831113940/https://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/11/07/27/transcript/ |date=August 31, 2019 }}." Retrieved July 17, 2017.</ref>

In his book ''2012: It's Not the End of the World'', Peter Lemesurier describes the channel's ''[[Nostradamus]]'' series, in which he was invited to participate, as "largely fiction" and "lurid nonsense".<ref name="Lemesurier2011">{{citation|first=Peter|last=Lemesurier|title=2012: It's Not the End of the World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Fi_QygAACAAJ|date=July 2011|publisher=Derwen Publishing|isbn=978-1-907084-15-7|page=91|access-date=January 17, 2020|archive-date=June 6, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240606003323/https://books.google.com/books?id=Fi_QygAACAAJ|url-status=live}}</ref> He also lists numerous allusions made in its films to the alleged Mayan "end of the world" and the "rare" galactic alignment that was supposed by [[John Major Jenkins]] to accompany it in [[2012 Phenomenon|2012]],<ref name="Lemesurier2011" /> while Jenkins himself has described ''[[Decoding the Past]]'' as "45 minutes of unabashed doomsday hype and the worst kind of inane [[sensationalism]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.alignment2012.com/historychannel.html|title=How Not to Make a 2012 Documentary|date=July 28, 2006|access-date=September 22, 2006|archive-date=November 5, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061105013745/http://www.alignment2012.com/historychannel.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In December 2011, [[Politifact]] gave the History Channel's claim that the [[United States Congress]] stayed open on [[Christmas Day]] for most of its first 67 years of existence a "pants on fire" rating, the lowest of its ratings, noting that its own research showed that both the [[United States Senate|Senate]] and the [[United States House|House]] had only convened once in those 67 years on a Christmas Day. It noted that because one in seven Christmases falls on a Sunday (when Congress does not meet to allow members  to attend church), the claim is "ridiculous".<ref name="Pf">{{cite web|title=Comic Jon Stewart says Congress met most Christmas Days in its early years|url=http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/dec/09/jon-stewart/comic-jon-stewart-says-early-congress-met-most-chr/|publisher=[[Politifact]]|access-date=January 21, 2012|date=December 11, 2011|archive-date=January 21, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121193402/http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/dec/09/jon-stewart/comic-jon-stewart-says-early-congress-met-most-chr/|url-status=live}}</ref> The claim had first been broadcast on the History Channel program ''Christmas Unwrapped – The History of Christmas'' before being subsequently picked up by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]]'s website on the "Origins of Christmas" and by the [[Comedy Central]] series ''[[The Daily Show]]''.<ref name="Pf" /> ''Daily Show'' host [[Jon Stewart]] responded the next day by stating it was their fault for trusting the History Channel and satirized a clip from the History Channel about UFOs and Nazis by stating, "The next thing you know we'll all find out the Nazis did not employ alien technology in their quest for world domination."<ref name="HP">{{cite news|title=Jon Stewart Fires Back At Politifact Over War On Christmas|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/jon-stewart-politifact-war-on-christmas_n_1146118.html|work=Huffington Post|access-date=January 21, 2012|date=December 13, 2011|first=Katherine|last=Fung|archive-date=June 6, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240606003407/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jon-stewart-politifact-war-on-christmas_n_1146118|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Daily">{{cite web|last=Stewart|first=Jon|title=War on Christmas - Historical Fact-Checking|url=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-12-2011/war-on-christmas-historical-fact-checking|work=[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]|publisher=[[Comedy Central]]|access-date=March 24, 2013|date=December 12, 2011|archive-date=June 6, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240606003340/https://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah|url-status=live}}</ref>

The History Channel was also singled out in a post for ''[[Smithsonian (magazine)|Smithsonian]]'' magazine. Science writer Riley Black took issue with the show ''[[Ancient Aliens]]'' for postulating the "idea that aliens caused the [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event|extinction of non-avian dinosaurs]]."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Black|first=Riley|date=2012-05-11|title=The Idiocy, Fabrications and Lies of Ancient Aliens|url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-idiocy-fabrications-and-lies-of-ancient-aliens-86294030/|access-date=2021-05-24|website=[[Smithsonian Institution|Smithsonian]]|archive-date=May 17, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210517220721/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-idiocy-fabrications-and-lies-of-ancient-aliens-86294030/|url-status=live}}</ref> The online magazine ''[[Cracked.com|Cracked]]'' also lampooned the channel for its strange definition of history. ''Cracked'' singled out the programs ''[[UFO Hunters]]'' and ''Ancient Aliens'' as being the very definition of non-history by presenting [[pseudoscience]] and [[pseudohistory]].<ref>{{cite web |last=West |first=Zach |date=June 30, 2010 |title=The History Channel |url=http://www.cracked.com/funny-5720-the-history-channel/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201126040750/https://www.cracked.com/funny-5720-the-history-channel/ |archive-date=November 26, 2020 |access-date=March 13, 2016 |website=Cracked}}</ref> In 2015, skeptic [[Brian Dunning (author)|Brian Dunning]] listed it at #2 on a "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" list.<ref>{{Skeptoid|id=4495|number=495|title= Updated: Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites |access-date=October 23, 2020|date=December 1, 2015|quote=2. History.com (...promoting flagrant pseudohistory...)}}</ref>

=== Amelia Earhart documentary controversy ===
{{Main|Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence}}
In 2017, a History Channel documentary, ''[[Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence]]'', proposed that a photograph in the National Archives of [[Jaluit Atoll]] in the [[Marshall Islands]] was actually a picture of a captured [[Amelia Earhart]] and [[Fred Noonan]]. The picture showed a Caucasian male on a dock who appeared to look like Noonan and a woman sitting on the dock, but facing away from the camera, who was judged to have a physique and haircut resembling Earhart's. The documentary theorizes that the photo was taken after Earhart and Noonan crashed at [[Mili Atoll]]. The documentary also said that physical evidence recovered from Mili matches pieces that could have fallen off an Electra during a crash or subsequent overland move to a barge. ''The Lost Evidence'' proposed that a Japanese ship seen in the photograph was the ''Koshu Maru'', a Japanese military ship.

''The Lost Evidence'' was soon discredited after Japanese blogger Kota Yamano found the original source of the photograph in the archives in the [[National Diet Library]] Digital Collection.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/amelia-earhart-lost-photograph-discredited-spd/| title=Amelia Earhart 'Lost Photograph' Discredited| last=Greshko| first=Michael| website=nationalgeographic.com| date=July 11, 2017| access-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171223131301/https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/amelia-earhart-lost-photograph-discredited-spd/| archive-date=December 23, 2017}}</ref> The original source of the photo was a Japanese travel guide published in October 1935, implying that the photograph was taken in 1935 or before, thus it would be unrelated to Earhart and Noonan's 1937 disappearance. Additionally, the researcher who discovered the photo also identified the ship in the right of the photo as another ship called ''[[Kōshū (survey ship)|Koshu]]'' seized by [[Allies of World War I|Allied]] Japanese forces in World War I and not the ''Koshu Maru''.<ref name="nprdebunk">{{cite news|last1=Domonoske|first1=Camila|title=Japanese Blogger Points Out Timeline Flaw In Supposed Earhart Photo|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/11/536620463/japanese-blogger-points-out-timeline-flaw-in-supposed-earhart-photo|access-date=July 11, 2017|publisher=NPR|language=en|archive-date=July 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711162559/http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/11/536620463/japanese-blogger-points-out-timeline-flaw-in-supposed-earhart-photo|url-status=live}}</ref>

Researcher [[Ben Radford]] performed a detailed analysis of the mistakes made by ''The History Channel'' in building their documentary on bad photographic evidence. In his ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'' article "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Emmys: An Amelia Earhart Special (Non) Mystery Post-Mortem", critiquing the network's lack of professionalism, Radford said: "Given that the photograph's provenance was established and thus the key premise of the show discredited in about half an hour of Google searching, it will be interesting to see what world class expertise... the History Channel will bring to their reinvestigation of Earhart's disappearance."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Radford|first1=Ben|author-link1=Benjamin Radford|title=A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Emmys: An Amelia Earhart Special (Non)Mystery Post-Mortem|url=https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/an_amelia_earhart_special_mystery |website=Csicop.org|publisher=CFI|access-date=December 9, 2017|archive-date=December 9, 2017|date=July 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171209222238/https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/an_amelia_earhart_special_mystery|url-status=live}}</ref> On episode 82 of his ''Squaring the Strange'' podcast, released January 4, 2019, Radford reminded listeners that in excess of 18 months had passed without an apology or explanation from the History Channel as to "how their research went so horribly wrong."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Radford |first1=Ben |author-link=Ben Radford |title=Episode 82 - Grab Bag 2018 |url=http://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/8129540/tdest_id/607796 |publisher=Libsyn |access-date=January 12, 2019 |archive-date=February 7, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190207072548/https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/8129540/tdest_id/607796 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="csicop-robpalmer">{{cite web |last1=Palmer |first1=Rob |title=Squaring the Skeptic with Celestia Ward (Part 2) |url=https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/squaring_the_skeptic_with_celestia_ward_part_2 |website=Skeptical Inquirer |date=January 25, 2019 |publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry |access-date=February 5, 2019 |archive-date=January 29, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129032708/https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/squaring_the_skeptic_with_celestia_ward_part_2 |url-status=live }}</ref>