39

I live in the Netherlands, where both National Geographic and Discovery Channel are available on television. In general, I enjoy watching their programs. In particular, those about History, Archeology, Wildlife, Ocean Life and Natural Phenomena. My impression is that these types of programs are "genuine," i.e., the documentary makers really want to inform the viewers, and producers don't ask for falsehoods to impress the audience and improve ratings. (But I might be wrong about this!)

On the other hand, both the National Geographic and Discovery Channel broadcast programs that are obviously fake and sometimes even nonsensical. A few examples are: "Chasing UFOs", "Ancient X-files", "Ghost Adventures," "Help! My house is haunted," and "Alien encounters: fact or fiction." I also recall a program in Shark Week in which it was claimed that once a yacht (mentioned by name) in trouble after a storm was circled by great white sharks, who suddenly fled when a megalodon appeared. Later, it was admitted that the story was 100 percent fake. Megalodons have been extinct for millions of years.

Why do National Geographic and Discovery Channel broadcast these programs? Surely, they must have a panel of scientific experts who object to the contents on the grounds that the programs contain fake information. Furthermore, frequently broadcasting fake content can easily tarnish the reputation of the two channels and their higher-quality programs.

Improve this question
12
  • 2
    I think its more of a case of vetting what they buy on the market. Often shows are made first, then sold to networks, who broadcast them after. The network didn't specifically make those shows, particularly the low quality ones, themselves. Also, what board of experts?
    – blobbymcblobby
    Commented Aug 26 at 16:29
  • 2
    It might have to do with advertising dollars as well. Would they make more money from facts or from sensationalism.
    – ArlettaS
    Commented Aug 26 at 17:14
  • 4
    TLC used to stand for The Learning Channel, look at what it became... yet it still makes enough money to keep airing.
    – Skooba
    Commented Aug 26 at 21:01
  • 5
    IIRC National Geographic was bought by Murdoch, so there is zero expectation of its content having any quality whatsoever. The only National Geopgraphic product still worth buying are the Trails Illustrated hiking maps for popular outdoor areas in the US and Canada.
    – gerrit
    Commented Aug 27 at 7:15
  • 3
    There are so many more examples of channels that have drifted from their original purpose. Remember when A&E was about prestige art? BBC America is full of American shows now. There's so little SF on SyFy that they changed the name.
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 27 at 14:38

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
47

Why do National Geographic and Discovery Channel broadcast these programs?

Channel drift: the phenomenon whereby a TV network drifts away from whatever programming it originally set out to produce and/or is best known for, and towards whatever it thinks will get the best viewing figures from a particular demographic, or will make it the most money from advertisers, or just whatever the executives like the most. TV Tropes calls this "Network Decay" (obligatory warning: the site's a massive time-sink!), and lists both channels as examples.

This is not unique to the Discovery Channel and National Geographic, as demonstrated by the sheer number of examples on both pages. The most notorious example, at least in the West, is probably MTV: it started life as a network exclusively for music videos, before drifting into teen dramas and reality TV shows, and now it barely shows any music videos at all - partly because licensing them was too expensive, but mostly because the executives decided Jersey Shore would pull more viewers in.

It's the same thing with National Geographic and the Discovery Channel airing shows about ghosts, aliens, and dinosaurs. They don't care how unscientific they are, as long as people will watch them and advertisers will sponsor them - and clearly they are, otherwise the networks wouldn't continue leaning in that direction.

Surely, they must have a panel of scientific experts who object to the contents on the grounds that the programs contain fake information.

No, because as I said before, they don't care. "Containing fake information" is only a concern if it could get them sued for slander, or if it's not interesting enough to act as engagement-bait. Again, their primary interest is not to be scientifically accurate: their primary interest is making a lot of money through high viewership and advertising revenue.

Frequently broadcasting fake content can easily tarnish the reputation of the two channels and their higher-quality programs.

The Discovery Channel has received plenty of criticism regarding for its content over the years, especially when it comes to Shark Week, so my honest response to that in their case would be, "What reputation?" (I can't find anything regarding National Geographic's reputation, but I suspect that's already been tarnished for a while as well in that regard.) Those who continue to watch those channels don't do so because they expect "higher-quality programs", but because they expect entertainment, and the execs are clearly happy to lean in that direction.

Improve this answer
5
  • 44
    As for who's responsible, I'm not saying it's aliens, but...
    – jeffronicus
    Commented Aug 26 at 21:57
  • 3
    And it wasn't always true that they didn't care. Most of these channels did start out with clear mandates to provide scientific/historical/educational/artistic material. But as they saw how popular the cheap, easy to produce programming was becoming elsewhere, while their ratings were dropping, those mandates became less important than following the money.
    – Elezar
    Commented Aug 27 at 23:07
  • It happens to a lot of cable stations. Remember G4/TechTV? They used to be all about technology and computers. Then, as the years went on, it was just hours and hours of Cops. It costs a lot of money to produce "real" content. Made up content and cheap syndicated shows are far cheaper and if people watch them, the commercials bring in the money.
    – Keltari
    Commented Aug 28 at 20:34
  • 2
    I don't know if any of the low-quality programs (e.g., Chasing UFOs) were actually produced by one or the other of National Geographic or the Discovery Channel - but I'd be surprised if many were. It's more likely that they're either independent shows or syndicated programs that are a low-cost/high-return space filler that gives both channels the flexibility to choose where to spend their production and programming money.
    – JBH
    Commented Aug 29 at 0:25
  • 4
    To be fair on MTV, Im not saying they expected it, but back in the day MTV was the only way to see music videos. With the advent of YouTube and the internet, I can go see whatever music video I want any time I want. They would not survive in todays environment if they just showed music videos.
    – James T
    Commented Aug 29 at 9:09
-2

I just want to comment about this:

The documentary makers really want to inform the viewers, and producers don't ask for falsehoods to impress the audience and improve ratings. (But I might be wrong about this!)

This is wrong and illogical. Documentary making is a job and people need to earn a living doing their jobs. It is very rare for people who are already wealthy and don't need to make more money to become filmmakers. Especially making documentary. One of the very few is Jamie Johnson (heir to the co-founder of Johnson & Johnson) and he documents how rich people live (eg. Born Rich and The One Percent).

In order to be able to sell their product (documentary) they need to make it attractive to consumers. If there is demand for aliens then someone will make a documentary about aliens.

The exception are programmes produced by the BBC. The BBC makes money primarily via tax. In the UK, in order to receive a TV signal legally, you must purchase a TV license (this is also required if you want to watch BBC's iPlayer over the internet). This license fee is mainly used to fund the BBC.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    BBC World is tasked with selling BBC-produced programming to TV companies outside of the UK. The BBC regularly partners with commercial providers like PBS, ABC and recently Disney+ to produce co-owned properties that they can then own the rights to
    – Valorum
    Commented Aug 28 at 5:33
  • 9
    The BBC aren’t the only (ostensibly) socially-responsible broadcaster and producer - it would be remiss of me to fail to mention Channel 4, PBS, CBC, RFE, DW, et cetera - who all have a charter or mandate to educate and inform - or some variation thereof.
    – Dai
    Commented Aug 28 at 7:23
  • 1
    Discovery makes the majority of their TV revenue via "tax" on pay-TV subscribers, where it's bundled into packages, not advertising.
    – user71659
    Commented Aug 28 at 19:18
  • 2
    also George Lucas and Tommy Wiseau were wealthy before getting into filmmaking. (Wiseau in particular is an interesting case because the source of his wealth has never been publicly revealed/discovered, leading to funny conspiracy theories like Wiseau being D.B. Cooper)
    – hanshenrik
    Commented Aug 29 at 11:03
  • 2
    BBC absolutely makes biased, low quality content too. It is also far from the only national broadcaster paid for with TV license fees (germany and austria have similar systems, alongside others).
    – ave
    Commented Aug 29 at 13:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .