Natb Geo rebuilding Titanic

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Michael, you're exactly right, much will purport to be new material whilst actually really being rehashed material from 10 or 20 years ago.<<

I wish I wasn't. I expect the Hysteria History Channel will dredge up some doozies. The Great Blunders in History episode they presented a few years ago was so loaded with pure drek, distortions, misunderstandings and worn out refuted myths that it had me screaming at the telly after only five minutes.

I turned it off at six minutes.

Yes, it was that bad!

 

[Steven Hall]

For me it is easy. I don't buy them or even watch them.
The last one I watched was the one hosted by Telly Savalas.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>The last one I watched was the one hosted by Telly Savalas.<<

Ahhhh. that silly dog and pony show! I watched it when it was presented live. I hope it stays buried in National Geographic's archives.

 

[Adam Went]

Michael:

That is one of the disadvantages of knowing your stuff in relation to the Titanic - one cannot simply sit and enjoy a documentary, instead they must scrutinise it almost word for word, as a force of habit, for any kinds of errors.

And, sadly, most of them - Titanic related or not - have plenty of misleading or just plain incorrect information.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>one cannot simply sit and enjoy a documentary,<<

Oh, it's even worse then that. When you're known among your mates as the "Go To Guy" for all things Titanic (I am) they tend to come to you with the caca-doodoo they see on the telly as if it were fact. It takes some time and no small measure of patience to help them seperate a producer's ill researched fantasy from reality, to say nothing of understanding why it matters.

The real annoyance comes with knowing that a lot of the general public sees that stuff and has no interest or means to fact check any of it.

 

[Adam Went]

Michael:

Well it's one of the reasons that so many fallacies continue to exist. Look, as you would know from other threads, i'm not entirely against stretching the known facts a bit at times if it seems to fit, but when you're producing a book or a documentary for the viewing of the general public, many of whom, as you allude to, don't have the means to have the same knowledge, then the responsibility lies on your shoulders to produce something which IS completely factual, or make it clear if it is not - otherwise the same old myths will continue to surface and surface again and drag us backwards.

Of course whether or not the docco makers actually don't know the full facts, or are deliberately looking to embellish or outright make them up for the extra interest and $$$, is another matter. There's only so many books or documentaries you can make with the same known facts.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Of course whether or not the docco makers actually don't know the full facts, or are deliberately looking to embellish or outright make them up for the extra interest and $$$, is another matter. <<

If you bet on which course brings in the most $$$, you can't go to far wrong in predicting which way it's going to go. To a degree, this is not entirely unreasonable since they have to attract advertisers to pay for the show and actually turn a profit for the investors. Still, I believe as you do that they have a responsibility to check the facts to make sure they are facts.

I just don't expect them to do it.