Stray thoughts on history and media

Last week Helen Weinstein gave a talk on history in the media, "It may be history, but is it true?" or something along those lines. In addition to outlining the varieties of TV and radio history, she advised the audience (almost all historians) on how to go about getting their scholarly work to a larger audience.

What struck me most was just how much history programming there is on British television and radio. While there are certainly outlets for history on U.S. television, you almost never see "straight" history on network TV; it's virtually always relegated to PBS, A&E, or the History Channel. In contrast, there are 8+ hours of history programming on the BBC in the next week, and that's ignoring the various satellite channels. And if Weinstein's right, that number is on the rise.

Now it's certainly the case that I could find more than 8 hours of history programming on U.S. TV in the next week. But it'd be on A&E or the History Channel; I'd be surprised if there's been 8 hours of history on ABC, CBS, and NBC in the past two months. I can't be sure about this, but it seems as if history has a far more prominent position in the media in the U.K. compared to the U.S.

Hell, there are famous TV historians here. So famous, in fact, that an impression show, Dead Ringers, (rather hilariously) spoofed Simon Schama and David Starkey. There just aren't any U.S. historians famous enough to make fun of. While there are some scholars that I recognize from their appearance on lots of documentaries, I couldn't tell you any of their names.

The fame of Schama and Starkey is based on the existence of a genre that doesn't really exist in the U.S.: the presenter-led documentary. When historians appear in documentaries in the U.S., they're talking heads who are there to provide specific information. The narrator of most documentaries is just that, a narrator who never appears onscreen and lacks any special knowledge of the topic.

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from all this. It looks as if British historians have greater opportunities to present their work to the public. Does that mean Brits care more about history than Americans? Does that mean Brits know more history than Americans?

A few days ago Ralph Luker provided a link to History News Service, "an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts." HNS works exclusively with the print media; U.S. historians would be well-served by the existence of parallel organizations for radio and television. Anyone know if such organizations exist?