America Unearthed and Ancient Aliens run on H2, a network owned by History, itself part of A+E Networks, the parent of A&E and the Lifetime family of channels. A+E Networks told Ad Age magazine recently that it is positioning History and H2 as male-oriented channels designed as a masculine counterpart to the female-oriented Lifetime brand. According to A+E, History has become a “male mega-brand,” and adding H2 as a branded extension of History has been key to providing content for a wide variety of men.

But who, exactly, do they think there audience is? Here’s a hint: If you’re old, poor, or informed about the world, they don’t want you. H2’s head of programming, Paul Cabana, explained that H2 is targeted at men, but A+E’s president of ad sales, Mel Berning, was much blunter. He said that H2 is for young, rich men, and he implied that it was also for those rich younger adults who are not interested in current events.

“It’s such a good cut of audience, the upscale male,” Berning told Ad Age. “Male viewers watch a lot of sports, a lot of news, but news skews really old.” He told the magazine that H2 is therefore aimed at men who don’t watch news, don’t watch sports, and don’t watch broadcast television. Who that is, I’m not sure; apparently it isn’t me.

Studies have found that news consumers are in general more educated than those who are not interested in news and current events. News viewers on average graduated college at higher rates than viewers of non-news programming, though those who typically read news in newspapers graduated college at higher rates than any television viewers.

By targeting non-news viewers, it seems that H2 is attempting to select for a less educated audience, though I’m not sure how that would square with trying to attract affluent men. Since young adults are significantly less likely to read print publications than older adults, it would seem that H2 isn’t going for the more highly-educated readers of print publications who scorn cable news. It seems that their ideal view is young, wealthy, and a low-information consumer. Not coincidentally, this is also the ideal market for advertisers, who are interested in wealthy consumers who are willing to accept televised claims without solid evidence.

Here’s what disturbs me most about what H2 thinks it is doing. A+E is selling H2 to upscale advertisers as a home for “deep” content focused on factual “information”, as Ad Age reports:

“There’s a portion of our viewers that still want the deeper dive,” said Dirk Hoogstra, senior VP-development and programming at History and H2. “So we said ‘If they are out there looking for that information, let's give them a home.’”

Two things are frightening about that view. First, that the VP of History/H2 consigns “facts” to those things that only a mere “portion” of views “still” want. This implies that History feels that audiences are uninterested in factual information, which, while probably true, is very sad. Second, that he seriously thinks that America Unearthed, the H2 network’s first original series, represents “deep information.” This low-information program relies on wild speculation, superficial understandings of history, and long shots of people standing around looking at show host Scott Wolter’s backpack. It easily has less information per hour than the average half hour of In Search of… from thirty years ago. H2 plans to roll out a dozen new programs this year, many modeled (in form if not content) on America Unearthed.

But it gets worse. Thanks to the strength of Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed, H2 has now surpassed Science, Military, HLN, Nat Geo Wild, and Speed in total viewers in the adults 25-54 demographic. Remember, H2 is targeting young, upscale men, many of whom are likely to be opinion leaders in their social networks and in the broader community due to their socioeconomic position for years to come.

So what’s the harm? Well, this week Victor Lana, an author of literary fiction, wrote about how Ancient Aliens has left him facing nightly insomnia and deep anxiety about the way the program’s speculations have shaken his faith in evolution, humanity’s position in the universe, and the ability of humanity to propose new solutions to problems because the “aliens” had handed early humans all the answers, meaning humans are too dumb to save ourselves. He apparently genuinely worries that the aliens will return to destroy humanity for its sins. His article provides no suggestion that he sought information beyond the show.

This probably isn’t typical of Ancient Aliens viewers, but it is an example of the kind of harm done by presenting rank speculation as fact, especially to those who are less educated, less interested in “facts,” and less willing to turn to other sources (such as print) to discern whether the stories the TV spins are actually true.

Worse: A+E wants to renovate its other channels, like Lifetime Real Women, on the H2 model. I shudder to consider what they think young women are interested in!

 


Comments

Shawn Flynn
03/04/2013 12:55pm

I'm bothered by the "Viking" thing they have rolling out soon. I hear them mentioning a big voyage. I have a feeling that its gonna be a retelling of the Vinland saga conformed to fit America Unearth.

Reply
03/04/2013 6:42pm

They wouldn't do that with the miniseries, I don't think, since they expect it to be a prestige piece with wide mainstream appeal.

Reply
Matt
03/04/2013 7:45pm

They are going to march right across Minnesota and plant the KR in episode 5.... get ready for it!

L Bean
03/06/2013 2:35pm

LOL Matt! But no, that probably will happen.

Marco
03/04/2013 2:30pm

Maybe we'll see Scott Wolter turning up artifacts in the pawn shop, or maybe the American Pickers will call him in to pore over the contents of someone's outhouse. On the way, he'll break down and one of History's celebrity tow-truck drivers will help out (or am I getting confused with another channel here? Much of cable TV looks the same to me). You can see where this is going to end, and it won't end well.

Reply
Jack
03/04/2013 2:53pm

Let's say the head of H2 programming emailed you and said they were willing to give you a trial season of 12, 1h shows dealing with whatever you wanted as long as it deals with history and targets the lucrative 18-50 male demographic. What would you propose?

Reply
03/04/2013 6:43pm

I don't have a problem with exploring ancient mysteries as the concept for a series. I have a problem with the dishonest way H2's series look at those ancient mysteries. It makes the old A&E "Ancient Mysteries" series and the syndicated "In Search of..." (1980s version) seem positively scholarly by comparison. Nonfiction programs pretending to be documentaries have an ethical obligation to play fair with the facts.

Reply
W
03/04/2013 5:40pm

Hi Jason,
I've been reading your blog for a couple months now, first time commenter. This post was so relevant to my personal experience with the History Channel that I couldn't resist sharing. You wonder at who this male audience could possibly be; after reading what you've posted I've realized that I'm married to a prime example.

My husband and I are both master's degree holding individuals in our late 20's with pretty diverging interests- he's a nuclear engineer and I work in genealogy. I've always had a lifelong interest in anything pertaining to history; though I'm too modest to consider myself a history buff I do have a pretty strong grasp on the subject. By contrast, my husband, through some combination of his disinterest (I personally believe he closed his ears and began to hum whenever something with a date attached was mentioned) and the American education system, remains pretty uneducated and ignorant of most things historical. I'd even venture to say that his only knowledge of current events is related to him by myself.

When Ancient Aliens premiered some years back my husband's interest was piqued. So relieved was I that I had finally found something on the History Channel that did not inspire eye rolling and pleas to change the channel, that I indulged him. The show was laughably absurd but it did manage to be entertaining and every now and then they would mention some obscure historical event or ruin that would send me gleefully running for an actual scholarly text to learn more. It never occurred to me that my husband was actually taking it seriously- although warning bells should have rang when packages began to arrive from Amazon bearing such books as Chariots of the Gods and Georgio Tsoukalos popped up as a friend on my husband's facebook.

I first realized that my husband had been taken in by these pseudo intellectual/armchair historian you'd like to have a beer with/fringe conspiracy theorists with their used car salesman smiles and absurd hairdos during their 195th (approximately) episode on the pyramids. An innocuous comment on the show led to a heated debate between my husband and I about them- with my husband taking the pyramidiot viewpoint that the knowledge to build them had been dropped from the sky; that they miraculously appeared almost overnight with absolute perfection. To him the pyramids hadn't evolved over thousands of years with varying degrees of success and had no difference whatsoever in technique or sophistication. I spent more time than I should have had to undeceiving him and when I concluded he conceded and sheepishly stated that he'd never heard that from Georgio Tsoukalos.

That was the first time I realized how irresponsible the History Channel had become and the dangerous implications of the content it airs. If someone like my well educated husband can be taken in by this snake oil I shudder to think of the uneducated and unintelligent who recommend it to their friends as gospel or worse, teach it to their children.

When America Unearthed debuted, with all its pomp and bravado, it was the final straw. There was this man, Scott Wolter, with his dubious credibility and seemingly imaginary brand of science (what the hell is archaeo petrography?) preaching that the "academics" and "scholars" were lunatics determined to subdue truth and fact and that he was your personal path to enlightenment (nevermind that he presents little that could be construed as truth or fact). I ran racing for my computer to find out just who was this man. Which led me to your blog, and mercifully to the end of my rant. A google search with the keywords Scott Wolter and fraud prompted few returns (probably because no one has heard of the man) and yours is the only site to cover him at any depth.

You seem surprised that others are responding to your coverage of this topic- I wouldn't be. Take it as a sign that others like me are fed up with the tripe that the History Channel is selling and hungry for the alternate viewpoint. It's a sad state of affairs when fringe conspiracy theorists are elevated to the position of expert and allowed to sell their brand of idiocy on a channel devoted to education while the true academics are resigned to merely blog in disbelief.

-W

Reply
03/04/2013 6:48pm

Thank you so much for writing and sharing your story. It's one that is sadly all too common. You do remind me of the very important point that education in one area does not mean that one is knowledgeable about other areas, and in fact being educated in one area can paradoxically lead people to become more susceptible to misinformation in other areas. I know, for example, that I have precious little understanding of the more theoretical aspects of high-end physics, and I'm sure that a TV program pretending to present cosmology could probably slip in some wacky claims and I wouldn't know the difference. As you note, that's why it is so important that broadcasters follow basic ethical standards in presenting information fairly.

Reply
Thane
03/04/2013 9:13pm

I remember the days when the History Channel was essentially the WWII channel.

I love history. It is one of my passions. Any place, any time, any topic. I just love history.

I also like parodies and psychology and so, conspiracies and alternative views fascinate me.

I was going to post about how disappointed I am with the History Channel but what is the point? Venting here won't change their programming decisions. I am not their demographic. (being a girl and all who actually reads history and loves factual information)

I believe it will only change when and if we can reintroduce critical thinking, the scientific method, intellectual honesty and personal honor back into our general society.

In the meanwhile, I am looking for talented people to find ways to fund interesteing and dramatically appealing programing (on the Internet, social media, as well as cable etc...) that is faithful to the historical record and minimizes if not eliminates the distortion of political correctness and the need not to offend someone or group by relating the facts and learner-ed debate on the merits and not the emotion tied to a topic.

i will support that in every way I can.

BTW, the history of the Norse and the Viking period is not my strong suite. I did watch the first episode which was okay dramatically.. not exactly compelling ..but does anyone have thoughts on the accuracy of their telling of the culture of the time? What about the sailing aids "Ragnar" showed his brother "Rollo"?

or can you refer me to some solid links or blogs?

I probably won't go out of my way to catch the next episode but I am curious.

Also, just as an aside, I WISH I got the military channel but I won't pay up a tier for even more channels I'll never watch just to get the Military Channel. The cable company is already getting too much of my money for the quality of the content.

Reply
Jonathan
03/04/2013 9:45pm

Re: The Vikings, check out this discussion thread for a few thoughts...

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=27587&highlight=

Reply
Thane
03/04/2013 11:56pm

Thank you, Jonathan.
Interesting read. I had many of the same concerns vi-a-vis accuracy of costume and weaponry but I also understand taht there are budgets for such things and often productions "make do" with what they can get their hands on.....but there is also a fair share of ignorance with folks in wardrobe and props.

Having read the little bit of the sacred text at the link posted in that thread, it's obvious The Vikings is not keeping close to the legend. I do hope that in the dramatization they are more accurate about Viking social norms and culture....but I won't be holding my breathe.

Christopher Randolph
03/04/2013 11:40pm

Thane -

The old joke was that History was the Hitler Channel. But what's wrong with that really? Fine by me, at least we all know WWII actually happened...

The WWII generation is literally dying off and/or isn't buying the products the advertisers want to push. Older people have about as much luck finding something they like on TV as they do on the radio dial. Sad, really.

Unfortunately I lived without TV and/or outside of the country for a decade and therefore only know the new version of History with all the junk.

We have a basic cable package and often if you check out the free On Demand stuff you'll find you can see a lot of reruns from shows on channels that don't come with your package. It's very hit or miss but you can still get some 'premium' programming that way. Hopefully where you live and with your provider you can catch some Military.

Reply
Thane
03/05/2013 12:09am

Thank you, Christopher, for the tip.

I've never checked out the free On Demand stuff. I think I've always been suspicious that there's a "catch". It's probably just more tracking of our viewing interests!

I'll check it out.

BTW, I'm not sure you missed anything by not having TV for 10 years!

Cathleen Anderson
03/04/2013 11:50pm

I wonder if anything would change if somebody sued them for fraud or complained to the FCC about their representing fiction as fact?

Reply
Jim
03/05/2013 2:30am

The FCC is only concerned when someone swears, talks about poop (other than Oprah), or has a wardrobe malfunction on the air, so unless the company that supplies their Indiana Jones costumes starts cutting costs by using inferior zippers I doubt the FCC will ever get involved.

As for fraud, AA tends to frame their speculation as a question - "what if ancient aliens blah blah blah". On the other hand, AU asserts in the opening credits that everything you learned about history is wrong. While this statement could certainly be challenged, what damages could you claim? Maybe a college could sue, but I don't think an individual would have a case.

Reply
03/05/2013 6:57am

The FCC does not have jurisdiction over cable TV, which does not use public airwaves.

Due to the First Amendment, there is no penalty for a TV show asserting demonstrably false claims about history since they have not libeled anyone according to current libel standards. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects both lies and unintentional errors.

Reply
Jim
03/05/2013 2:53pm

Ancient Aliens only needs to file the paperwork, then they can be protected under religious freedoms as well...

That's interesting about the FCC. Does this mean that a cable channel marketed for children, like the Disney Channel or Nickelodeon, could schedule age inappropriate shows during the daytime and not have any legal repercussions?

03/05/2013 3:00pm

That is correct. There is no legal restriction on cable TV content, except for obscenity and libel. All of the restrictions on cable content are self-imposed industry standards, largely modeled on broadcast TV. Many cable channels are owned by conglomerates with broadcast networks, so they follow similar standards to avoid calling down the wrath of the FCC on their broadcast divisions--and, of course, to avoid offending viewers who might turn the channel.

seahay
03/05/2013 9:11am

Admen - is there anything they can't do?

They identified a demographic that I never knew existed in any number, and will relentlessly pummel them with ads for......?

"H2 is attracting more high-end advertisers from the financial, auto and tech world, said Marc Morse, senior VP-national buying, at RJ Palmer."

Good luck with that.

Reply



Leave a Reply