They tend to put compelling, familiar narratives ahead of research. I know that's what TV is about, so they can't be blamed in that sense, but, in their quest for the familiar and compelling, they tend to use either the most familiar or most sensationalist historical narratives, and that's when things often go sideways.
The 'familiar' narratives tend to be outdated (superseded by more recent research) stuff that was in the textbooks of previous generations or the subject of a bestseller by an author (too often not an historian) with famous but flawed, superseded, or biased conclusions. The 'sensationalist' narratives are usually just that - exciting but questionable stuff drawn from uncorroborated work by fringe historians, or just plain old "leave out the 'boring' or contradictory stuff" narratives. Most times, these questionable narratives are woven in with well-established fact, so they can be hard to distinguish. It's really a matter of suspending belief while watching and checking out their assertions for yourself.
In general, PBS is still a good source of history docs, and other U.S. channels get it right as often as not. The really bad perpetrators of this stuff in my experience are the oddball, low-budget docs lurking in the shadows of Amazon Video, Netflix, etc., as well as most by the 'History' Channel and some of Smithsonian Channel's stuff (they are not run by the Smithsonian Institute anymore). I can't speak to other countries' channels/production companies.
Some warning signs to look for: only one actual historian 'talking head' (especially a very young one with no university credentials in his/her title) presenting the main evidence for the narrative; super-specific topics with little context provided; stories told in re-enactments rather than by documents or other sources from the time; the words "Secrets of..." in the title; lots of weasel words and phrases like "may have," "might," "some believe," "new evidence suggests everything we know is wrong," "according to some historians," "Dr. So-and-so believes," and "what [they, historians, etc.] don't want you to know is..."
There's more, but being a smart viewer of history docs basically just comes down to using your BS/sensationalism detector and checking the facts for yourself on reputable sites, or in books by historians, whenever things seem overly exciting or you find yourself thinking, "Holy cow! Why wasn't this headline news?!?"
Care to elaborate a bit?
They tend to put compelling, familiar narratives ahead of research. I know that's what TV is about, so they can't be blamed in that sense, but, in their quest for the familiar and compelling, they tend to use either the most familiar or most sensationalist historical narratives, and that's when things often go sideways.
The 'familiar' narratives tend to be outdated (superseded by more recent research) stuff that was in the textbooks of previous generations or the subject of a bestseller by an author (too often not an historian) with famous but flawed, superseded, or biased conclusions. The 'sensationalist' narratives are usually just that - exciting but questionable stuff drawn from uncorroborated work by fringe historians, or just plain old "leave out the 'boring' or contradictory stuff" narratives. Most times, these questionable narratives are woven in with well-established fact, so they can be hard to distinguish. It's really a matter of suspending belief while watching and checking out their assertions for yourself.
In general, PBS is still a good source of history docs, and other U.S. channels get it right as often as not. The really bad perpetrators of this stuff in my experience are the oddball, low-budget docs lurking in the shadows of Amazon Video, Netflix, etc., as well as most by the 'History' Channel and some of Smithsonian Channel's stuff (they are not run by the Smithsonian Institute anymore). I can't speak to other countries' channels/production companies.
Some warning signs to look for: only one actual historian 'talking head' (especially a very young one with no university credentials in his/her title) presenting the main evidence for the narrative; super-specific topics with little context provided; stories told in re-enactments rather than by documents or other sources from the time; the words "Secrets of..." in the title; lots of weasel words and phrases like "may have," "might," "some believe," "new evidence suggests everything we know is wrong," "according to some historians," "Dr. So-and-so believes," and "what [they, historians, etc.] don't want you to know is..."
There's more, but being a smart viewer of history docs basically just comes down to using your BS/sensationalism detector and checking the facts for yourself on reputable sites, or in books by historians, whenever things seem overly exciting or you find yourself thinking, "Holy cow! Why wasn't this headline news?!?"