[Epapazian]

I happen to be in the media business, so I understand that the only way for the History or Military Channels to turn a profit is by buying super cheap programming and rerunning each installment hundreds of times. Still, I am amazed at the sloppy work of many of the documentary producers these channels rely on. For example, a review of the Battle of the Bulge starts off by telling us that Hitler stealthily assembled 175 divisions ( or some number of this magnitude) for his December 1944 assault.Huh? If that had happened we would have been driven into the English Channel. The visual support used in these programs is even less accurate. A piece on B-24 bombers treats us to footage of B-25s instead ( true, both planes had twin tails ); an episode about Germany's Tiger tanks shows us footage of Mark IV Panzers; a review of the ill-fated Dieppe raid shows the German's counterattacking with French light tanks, and so it goes. The underlying assumption of the cheapo documentary makers is that no one will notice. I think that they are wrong and such sloppy work reflects badly on the channels that air such programs. What do you guys think?