I grew up watching pretty much only PBS and the NBC nightly news, and as such I have a fondness for educational/factual television. Yes, I love to watch plenty of mindless entertainment, but I’m also perfectly willing to kick back and watch something informative. Before moving to Korea last August, I’d never had the opportunity to watch the Discovery Channel. I was excited, thinking I’d be watching it more than anything else. (Little did I know OCN would distract me by showing CSI nearly all the time… And yes, I can sense Caitlin’s disapproval from across the Pacific.) CSI notwithstanding, I do actually watch the Discovery Channel Asia a good bit, although over the past ten months I’ve begun to wonder just how accurate it all is.
My distrust of the Discovery Channel stems from several things. Two of those “things” are actually two episodes that I really enjoy watching: A Haunting and Psychic Detectives. They’re really entertaining, although I don’t take any of it seriously. The thing is, these shows present everything as fact without present any alternate explanations for what’s happened.
For example, in one episode I saw of A Haunting, a woman starts to have incredibly strong, irrational, unexplainable feelings of sadness and despair shortly after moving into a newly purchased old house with her boyfriend. The show explains her feelings by bringing in psychics who sense the negative energy of a malevolent spirit, blah, blah, blah. To me it seemed obvious that the woman was suffering from the classic symptoms of clinical depression; she needed Lexapro and not an exorcism. Additionally, it seems that almost all of the A Haunting episodes involve some sort of Catholic exorcism/cleansing. Do only Catholics see ghosts? The show also presents as fact that if you use a ouija board or dabble in the occult, you will soon be possessed and/or tormented by Demons from Hell. As someone who has done both of those things, I would just like to point out that I haven’t summoned any demons.
I took a class in college called Pseudopsychology. We looked at all sorts of paranormal phenomena, but we looked at them from the point of view of the believer as well as the scientist. Everything we discussed in class was debunked via scientific experimentation. As an educational television station, shouldn’t they add some education of this sort to their shows about ghosts and psychics? Or do they skip over that simply because it’s not as entertaining?
One weekend I stumbled upon a documentary on the Discovery Channel about a British scientist who had discovered the fossilized remains of dragons in Eastern Europe – irrefutable proof that dragons were not mythical beasts after all. It was an incredibly well done documentary, with interviews and footage from the excavations and extensive delving into historical records… except that as I was pretty damn sure none of it was real, I checked online. According to the Discovery Channel’s website, it was a mockumentary showing what would happen *if* someone discovered proof that dragons had existed. Um, ok. Someone please tell me what’s the point here? Confusing small children who might watch and then believe in dragons? Yes, it was entertaining, and yes, I watched the whole thing… but that was hardly educational!
Obviously, not all shows on the Discovery Channel are of that nature. I watched an excellent documentary of the terrorist siege at the school in Beslan, Russia quite recently. I felt that the documentary was quite well done (especially considering that they were able to get Russians willing to go on television and criticize the way the government handled the situation; that kind of open criticism is hard to find over there), and I felt that I learned a lot. Except that afterwards, I found myself wondering if everything I had just watched was presented as accurate. I mean, this was the channel that told me ghosts and dragons were factual!
So what are your feelings on educational television? (And not just the Discovery Channel – you can take on PBS or the History Channel or any other educational station.) How factual should educational television be? Is it acceptable to include shows about dragons and psychics and ghosts without any sort of scientific counter argument? Or should educational TV be like the channels here in Korea: a teacher lecturing at a blackboard, guaranteed to send your children to sleep immediately?
My distrust of the Discovery Channel stems from several things. Two of those “things” are actually two episodes that I really enjoy watching: A Haunting and Psychic Detectives. They’re really entertaining, although I don’t take any of it seriously. The thing is, these shows present everything as fact without present any alternate explanations for what’s happened.
For example, in one episode I saw of A Haunting, a woman starts to have incredibly strong, irrational, unexplainable feelings of sadness and despair shortly after moving into a newly purchased old house with her boyfriend. The show explains her feelings by bringing in psychics who sense the negative energy of a malevolent spirit, blah, blah, blah. To me it seemed obvious that the woman was suffering from the classic symptoms of clinical depression; she needed Lexapro and not an exorcism. Additionally, it seems that almost all of the A Haunting episodes involve some sort of Catholic exorcism/cleansing. Do only Catholics see ghosts? The show also presents as fact that if you use a ouija board or dabble in the occult, you will soon be possessed and/or tormented by Demons from Hell. As someone who has done both of those things, I would just like to point out that I haven’t summoned any demons.
I took a class in college called Pseudopsychology. We looked at all sorts of paranormal phenomena, but we looked at them from the point of view of the believer as well as the scientist. Everything we discussed in class was debunked via scientific experimentation. As an educational television station, shouldn’t they add some education of this sort to their shows about ghosts and psychics? Or do they skip over that simply because it’s not as entertaining?
One weekend I stumbled upon a documentary on the Discovery Channel about a British scientist who had discovered the fossilized remains of dragons in Eastern Europe – irrefutable proof that dragons were not mythical beasts after all. It was an incredibly well done documentary, with interviews and footage from the excavations and extensive delving into historical records… except that as I was pretty damn sure none of it was real, I checked online. According to the Discovery Channel’s website, it was a mockumentary showing what would happen *if* someone discovered proof that dragons had existed. Um, ok. Someone please tell me what’s the point here? Confusing small children who might watch and then believe in dragons? Yes, it was entertaining, and yes, I watched the whole thing… but that was hardly educational!
Obviously, not all shows on the Discovery Channel are of that nature. I watched an excellent documentary of the terrorist siege at the school in Beslan, Russia quite recently. I felt that the documentary was quite well done (especially considering that they were able to get Russians willing to go on television and criticize the way the government handled the situation; that kind of open criticism is hard to find over there), and I felt that I learned a lot. Except that afterwards, I found myself wondering if everything I had just watched was presented as accurate. I mean, this was the channel that told me ghosts and dragons were factual!
So what are your feelings on educational television? (And not just the Discovery Channel – you can take on PBS or the History Channel or any other educational station.) How factual should educational television be? Is it acceptable to include shows about dragons and psychics and ghosts without any sort of scientific counter argument? Or should educational TV be like the channels here in Korea: a teacher lecturing at a blackboard, guaranteed to send your children to sleep immediately?
12 comments:
I got cable for the first time in my life a in January, and I was disappointed in the "educational" channels. They aren't educational so much as sensationalised infotainment, which isn't informative or especially entertaining. Even NOVA was heading down this path when I stopped watching it regularly. (not a coincidence)
It seems like educational TV is pandering to the lowest common denominator (bored kids), which is something I don't understand. Jane, you're an adult who likes to watch educational TV, as am I and lots of others that I know. Why are we subjected to crap? I guess people like you or me don't get called into enough focus groups.
A dangling fact that is too good not to include: The History Channel in Canada was came under fire from the government because they were showing 6 episodes of CSI:NY a day. Canadian history is notoriously boring, though, so it's probably ok.
I loved watching NOVA as a child - in fact, it was one of my favorite shows (yes, I've always been this much of a dork). The last time I watched NOVA was a few years ago when I was in the US. I was very disappointed at how dumbed down everything seemed. I couldn't decide if it was because I was watching it as a grown up, or if they'd indeed dumbed it down.
I loved Mr. Rogers and Seaseme Street, but I guess that's not really what you are talking about though. These days I sit mindlessly in front of Fat Husband and Skinny Wife (you know the type King of Queens, According to Jim), some murder show (all the same really), or some WB show (again, all the same). Sometimes I try to read a book or watch something good but then I just feel guilty that I am not doing reearch or studying for the final exam I will ever take. Then I fall asleep or read blogs. It's a terrible pattern really. I've started working out everytime I get stuck in that cycle and I'm starting to get quite fit. That's the upside, I guess.
Melissa
Jane,
First let me inform you that I've been watching CSI lately. But I feel plenty guilty about it.
As for educational TV, this is a touchy subject with me, too. I would be more than happy to sit around watching interesting documentaries all day. The problem is that there aren't many! The Discovery Channel used to be all about information and innovation and now it's the Psychic Network (often without the slightest hint of skepticism). The History Channel might as well be the WWII airplane channel most of the time, and TLC (The Learning Channel) is the stay-at-home-mom-fluffy-bunny channel.
In addition to the Psychic/Ghost/Pseudoscience shows there is a whole category of shows about specific events in or books of the Christian bible (O and NT). All of these shows start from the viewpoint of the True Believer (TM) and beg a whole series of questions, in the philosophical sense, arriving at some prophecy-confirming conclusion about the good book.
Lucky for me(?) there are a few new channels out there to make up for the hijacking of those classic channels that have gone bad. There is something called the Science Channel, for one, which runs documentaries about all sorts of topics I know nothing about, so I watch about one a week (Super Massive Black Holes? WTF!? I have to know what those are!)
I guess the moral is that you have to look around, pick-and-choose, and supply your own skepticism when it comes to "educational" tv these days. There is still quality programming being made (and there are still quality re-runs of old NOVA bits), you just have to look. Hard.
Ugh. It's 1:00am and I'm watching a Discovery Channel special on Nostradamus. I blame this on that cup of coffee I had at 8:15.
Am I the only one here who doesn't have cable? I haven't seen the Discovery channel in years, and the only "educational television" I've caught in recent times has been of the PBS variety. Guess what tho, I still have an opinion! When I saw Jane's bulletin on myspace the first thing I thought was "educational tv? no such thing," and really this is essentially what I tend to believe. I'm extremely wary of anything that competes for advertising dollars and for the attention of the masses (ratings). PBS is less bad, but that too has to fight for ratings in order to retain gov. funding so they are in the same position, if only slightly less so.
What's really embarrassing is that I'm a white male between the ages of 18 and 35 with disposable income. I'm in the demographic that's pandered to above all others. And this is what we get?
White guilt, male guilt, youth guilt...
Well, I have a child and we watch "fact-based" (educational seems too strong a term) TV quite often. She loves some Dora, Little Einsteins, etc... But lately we've been watching Animal Planet and other factual programming and she's totally digging it (as am I!). I have also been enjoying Penn & Teller lately, but I guess that doesn't really fit the bill of educational programming either. LOL
Oops- Above annonymous post is from me- Tina ;)
Penn & Teller = educational for adults
Well, Penn & Teller is a lot of fun to watch, but they're pretty unreliable, and I don't know if I would call them educational.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
I love "The Deadliest Catch" on Discovery. A couple of weeks ago, one captain being video taped pointed out how dangerous it was that a nearby crab boat's crewmember was trying to tie down the pots in rolling 30-35 foot waves while hanging over the side of the vessel. Seconds later the man was gone and next thing you know they are racing the clock to save the freezing man's life.
I've never seen something so nerve racking before in my life. It was so extraordinary to see these fishermen frantically struggle to save someone else's crewmember, and then to see how overcome everyone was with emotions when they saved his life. It blew me away. The majority of those who fall into the sea or go down on a ship are never rescued in time do to the freezing temps and difficulty of manuevering these large craft though the rough waves.
Post a Comment