Discovery Network to launch The Military Channel

PsychoSword

Moderator
Discovery Network to launch The Military Channel
Startup will 'attract new viewers and sponsors,' DCI pres gushes

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18219


Shortly after US bombs started dropping on Baghdad in late March 2003, Tim Goodman, the San Francisco Chronicle's television critic, quoted Paul Saffo, a "technology forecaster," who predicted that "It's just a matter of time before we have the War Channel." It took nearly twenty months, but an enterprising network has finally warmed to the idea: Recognizing that the war against terrorism is, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put it over a year ago, a "long, hard slog," Discovery Communications International (DCI) will give the American public a front row seat by re-launching its six-year-old Discovery Wings Channel as the Military Channel.
Saffo, who runs the Institute for the Future, an independent, nonprofit research firm in Menlo Park, California, made his prediction as the war had just gotten underway and the public -- seeing little else other than glowing reports from reporters embedded with the troops -- tuned in to the 24/7 cable television news networks in large numbers. War fever spread with each report of US troops moving ever closer to Baghdad. The possibility that Saddam Hussein might be captured or killed on live television was intoxicating. The cable television news networks were poised for some big real-time actualities and before too long the Pentagon put on a show. While it wasn't live shots of Hussein being dragged through the city's streets, the toppling of his statue fit the bill. (Never mind that the photo op, like many things to come, was entirely staged.)

Goodman -- writing with tongue firmly embedded in cheek -- reported that Saffo believed that "there's a natural group of journalists who are 'war groupies' willing to go anywhere to cover war." Throw in "international reporters who are getting their proverbial feet wet in Iraq and foreign correspondents who are learning how to use new technology more smoothly, you've got a group ripe to be cherry-picked by someone like... Rupert Murdoch, maybe?"

Well, it isn't Murdoch who is going to try and cash in on war and its spinoffs; it's the good folks at DCI. According to a MediaChannel.org report by Rory O'Connor, DCI is a "media behemoth" with some "60 networks representing 19 entertainment brands" in its stable including TLC, Animal Planet, Travel Channel, Discovery Health Channel, Discovery Kids, and, in partnership with the New York Times, the Discovery Times Channel.

"By covering all aspects of the military and the people who define it, we will extend the Discovery brand, create a service that appeals to our existing viewers and attract new viewers and sponsors," said Billy Campbell, president of Discovery Networks US, who called military-related issues "a topic of fascination and relevance in our world."

What does Campbell mean by "covering all aspects of the military," and who does he consider to be "the people who define it"? The first indicators are not particularly encouraging. According to a Reuters/Hollywood Reporter story, up until now, Discovery Wings "has focused exclusively on aviation and related subjects," but "as part of its Military makeover," the network has already "formed partnerships with the USO, the National D-Day Museum and the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation to develop programming for the channel as well as educational campaigns and public service announcements."

If the Military Channel would offer viewers a "fair and balanced" picture of war, it would contribute immeasurably to a better understanding of war, its causes and consequences.

For example, imagine being able to see, as in they report and you decide, two detailed presentations of the recent US leveling of the city of Fallujah. On December 5, the Washington Post's Thomas E. Ricks reported that these polar presentations -- "two photo-rich summaries of the battle of Fallujah -- one produced by the U.S. military in Iraq, the other by an anonymous American blogger" have been "battling it out over the Internet for viewers."

The military's presentation -- found at the web site of Soldiers for the Truth -- "depicts the fight for Fallujah as a liberation of a city from the insurgents," Ricks reports. The 59-page Microsoft PowerPoint presentation titled, "Telling the Fallujah Story to the World," was produced by top public affairs officers at the U.S military headquarters in Baghdad and is part of a new round of efforts to win support for the war.

"Iraq in Pictures" is the name of the web log that's posting "far more graphic wire service and other photos, and tends to point the finger of blame for civilian suffering at the military."

While the Military Channel's programming schedule has yet to be determined, there will likely be the standard stuff -- old newsreels from World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and some up-to-date reports from Iraq.

Imagine, if you will, the programming possibilities: Debates, symposiums, discussions with leading war historians and scholars; in-depth discussions of the strategies of war; interviews with military veterans; discussions of the plight of veterans; live coverage of combatants' funerals; coverage of war crimes tribunals; profiles of war profiteers and new weapons systems.

Unfortunately, instead of high-minded programming, the Military Channel is likely to fill its schedule with war movies, advertisements for war-related video games, an hour on new war toys, cooking shows with recipes culled from grizzled battlefield veterans, post-war makeovers, the Army-Navy game, and recruitment pitches galore. From weapons to wardrobe accessories, the marketing opportunities are enormous.

Scheduled to debut on January 10, the Military Channel will lead with two seemingly non-controversial premieres: "Delta Company," a two-hour special "chronicl[ing] the route taken by the Delta Company's 1st Tank Battalion last year as it pushed toward Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom," and "Task Force Red Dog," an hour-long special about the Marine Corps reservists "who were called on to establish a base deep in the mountains of Afghanistan as the U.S. military launched its hunt for Osama bin Laden and Taliban leaders in late 2001. "
 
Hello everybody.™

If that's for real, then I say...

Heck ya...I'll just tune in for their discussion on submachine guns and carbines... :p :p
 
Betcha there's not much new material...

I spent a lot of time in the military and really enjoy keeping up to date, but there's only so many reruns of "Mosquitos", "Spitfires", "Flying Forts", etc. that I can tolerate :barf:

I hope they at least move into the late 20th century. :)
 
Last edited:
Exactly....

Professional historians call the History Channel the "Hitler Channel".

The Discovery Channel folks really seem to have ceded even their traditional turf of "science and technology" to the History Channel. If you don't believe me, note that Discovery started having wall to wall crap like "Trading Spaces" while the History Channel has long been beefing up its tech lineup with programs like "Modern Marvels" and its derivatives. "Trading Spaces" is fine if you like reality programming but it is not what one expects from what was supposed to a science and technology channel.

So it seems strange that they are now trying to compete on History's and A&E's turf.

Granted people will point out that Discovery does have the Science Channel to cover its traditional ground. But one should note that the Discovery name was taken off of that to give it a new look (it used to be called the Discovery Science Channel).

I have my doubts that we'll get really good coverage of obscure conflicts that have never really gotten the TV treatment.

If you want to stick with the last five hundred years then there's always the the Thirty Year's War in Europe. Naturally, there are plenty of obscure conflicts in the Twentieth century that could be covered.

I don't think that the "let's repeat the same stuff" syndrome is all due to suppossed viewer demand.

It simply takes a lot more legwork to produce a half decent program on the Finno-Russian War then it does to take another look at Stalingrad.

If you're trying to make money, even laying viewer demand (or the perception of it) aside, doing the same old stuff is more cost effective.
 
Great propaganda machine for embedding the notion that a war can really be waged against a noun like "terrorism". Target audience; the youth - who will be drawn in with their enthusiasm when the right buttons are pressed, and once drawn in are not likely to just shrug it off five, ten or twenty years or more down the road.

I was listening to another propaganda jingle that has been played over and over again at intervals on a syndicated "conservative" radio broadcast recently that kept reminding, or rather reinforcing, that "life in America has changed". This was repeated several times over and over mixed in with other trendy garbage and voiceovers that was superficially merely an ad promoting the radio station itself.
 
On any given day several wars are going on in different parts of the world.

Wonder if they will have coverage of wars in places like the Congo or East Timor or some other stinkhole.

The recent war in Liberia would have been a hoot, one faction wore womens dresses and wigs and another only ammo belts! Groovy!, fuzzy pixilated patches over their privates as they shoot at the guys with dresses. Would have loved to see Christianne Amanpour covering that one :eek:

How 'bout the Chechnya war. Slice off a few russian heads for the camera.

Lots of good material out there. More fun than stick and ball games on TV. And not as boring as "survivor".
 
Lak,

No doubt about it; war will make "good entertainment".

Mankind has known that for the last 30,000 years or so; only recently have we gotten squeamish about it, largely due to the fact that we temporarily forgot our roots and thought that war was about atomic bombs, rather than about having a sanctioned activity to send young males off to so that they could show the Tribe how brave and strong they are by defending it against The Others. Incidentally, for much of human history, the tribe would actually go watch its young males at war.
 
Conspiricy theories aside, there is no propaganda imbedding a desire to fight any war on the History Channel. Check your TV...there is an on/off switch and a channel selector which enables you to watch only those shows that you want to. If they're pumping the content directly to your cerebral cortex, you can fashion a hat from tin foil to block those signals.

Now, I have to fondle my 1911A1 while I watch 'Band of Brothers'.
 
Tamara
Mankind has known that for the last 30,000 years or so; only recently have we gotten squeamish about it, largely due to the fact that we temporarily forgot our roots and thought that war was about atomic bombs, rather than about having a sanctioned activity to send young males off to so that they could show the Tribe how brave and strong they are by defending it against The Others. Incidentally, for much of human history, the tribe would actually go watch its young males at war.

True; people are very fortunate in this country having not had a real war on home soil for almost a century and a half. But maybe we ought to be just alittle squeamish about it. Just two thousand years ago some of the entertainment in the arenas had little to do with any concept of civilized nations.

There are piles factual material on the subject of war both in print and on film. I am not so sure that having our current geo-political conquests piped into homes as entertainment fodder and a cure for boredom are such a good idea.
 
Was Discovery Wings -- Now Military Channel

What Discovery is doing is renaming Discovery Wings to the Military Channel.

The aviation community is bummed about this, but it has been obvious for some time this was coming.
 
Back
Top