I think people are pointing this out because of the source. I don't know about them, but I and many of my friends and family remember a time when Discovery and History Channels were just as respected and regarded as the major news networks. If you heard something from them, it was taken as fact. Even if it were something far-fetched, say from a supernatural, extraterrestrial or cryptozoological nature, it was taken as a well researched opinion and that most of the photographic and/or video evidence would be reenactment.
In my opinion, this is where the real onus truth lays with Discovery Channel. Yes, these things are flights of fancy; but, if you saw it on the ABC News tomorrow night, would you not at least think there was some grain of fact or truth? Such is the expectation of Discovery. In these days of reality TV and other scripted shows that are inspired by truth, we have to be cautious. However, shouldn't there still be a few of the old places we can trust? I think so. And for that I say, History, Discovery, Animal Planet, etc., get your stuff together and get back to thinks that are based on fact or at least heavily studied theory; and, if it is something hard to believe, make clear disclaimers that it is theoretical and not based on hard evidence. Most of all, DON'T SHOW FICTITIOUS CRAP! You are contributing to the destruction of this countries collective IQ and betraying those of us who remember you as one of the last bastions of learning on television.
reply
share