History+on+TV

=history on tv= i dont know if this is the right thing to do...
 * [[image:http://c1.wikicdn.com/i/user_none_lg.jpg width="48" height="48" caption="jcummins1" link="http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/jcummins1"]] || [|jcummins1] Yesterday 10:37 am
 * [[image:http://c1.wikicdn.com/i/user_none_lg.jpg width="48" height="48" caption="jcummins1" link="http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/jcummins1"]] || [|jcummins1] Yesterday 10:37 am

history on tv can be both benificial or misleading. this is a huge problem for tv history as it is designed to turn over a profit. entertainment is often held in higher inportance than fact and information. the director of the tv show is most likely making the programme to create a profit, which is accessed by the appeal to the audience. audiences are of varing levels of intelect and knowlege on hostorical topics which leaves the tv show to deal with all of these people to gain the largest audience possible. the large the audience the more money accessable. this often results in the tv show being "simplified" often leaving out detail so the simpler part of the audience is not left behind and they feel good about themselves afterwards. this then means the tv show has most likely reduced the full extent of the event and only deal with the core detalis such as who when where and in very little dept why. without a deeper investigation into the matter it is likely that those who derrive their information from tv are being fed a hollywood representation which has been stripped of the less entertaining, however, crucial to understandign factors. the entertainment value is put before the accuracy value. however if all accuracy was lost then the tv show would have no credability, so the bare bones are essential. to the most part uneducated aduience they know no better than to accept the information presented to them selected by the directors. the historian who has resarched well and understands the situation to the full or at least more extent by using reliable sources and their own judgement is able to see the flaws presented in a thematic entertaining representation.

this is why tv history, while some may be, is not to be trusted! after a historians personal resarch and thoughts have been conducted that historian may decide on the reliability of the tv history, however up untill that point it is safest to expect the worst, in historical accuracy. a fine example of this is 300. while an entertaining and thrilling representation the historical accuracy is far from close. the bare bones are kept, the 300 spartans and Xerxes invading greece, thermopalye is name dropped, however the deatil is completly unsupported historically. from the appearance of Xerxes to the endless well and severly deformed creature this is far from what, in my oppinion, is a accurate tv history. || What impact does TV have on the presentation of history? How does Stern's context impact on his views?

Jack good effort you have some sound opinions but you do need to engage more with the actual content of the article. Be very specific about the views and attitudes of the author and reflect on how his views impact specifically on the key questions. MAD