What interests people in history? why watch a programme over reading a
book? Despite the fact it is likely to be simplified.

The ones I have seen are quite well done, simplified, of course, and
like all history, based on someone's interpretation, so one has to
judge from the source and personal knowledge how objective the
programme may be.  But there are some responsible people making them.
I am always surprised at the effort and expense when costume scenes
are included, but maybe they take excerpts from films for a bit of
sword play and gun powder smoke.

A lively, well commentaried programme gets the facts across better
than a book does  - a picture is worth 1000 words.  Most of us are
more interested in learning the bare facts about important "dates" in
history, perhaps with a little guilty conscience from knowing that we
once heard the date in history but just recall that it was something
about Napoleon, or that the Thirty Years War had something to do with
religion  (which may be my false recollection, among other things, of
course ;).

In addition, the programmes sometimes but the subject into perspective
with reference to the more recent situation in the area, which many
history books do not  - and some others do, but sometimes interpreted
to provide support for the author's explanation of why this or that in
recent years was inevitable ...

Such a programme can also take one side, but the cost and hope that it
will receive broader distribution limit this in the Western World.

In 3/4 of an hour, the viewer can get a better understanding of the
event than most of us would from spending much more time reading a
book  - which most of us probably wouldn't, despite/because of our
passive interest.

Just one man's opinion.

A picture is worth a thousand words (moving pictures are worth even more).

tutuzdad-ga

The visual element can add quite a bit to one's experience. Last year
I watched a program about the engineering of ancient Rome. Although I
had read about this subject before, the computer-animated re-creations
brought a different perspective to my understanding and enjoyment.
Somehow, things seen in pictorial form have a certain vividness and
reality that may be lacking when one reads descriptions in print.

just my humble opinion...

most people (at least in the US) dont like to spend the time to read a
book, magazine, newspaper, etc because it takes too much of their
"precious" time.

i mean, come on, who needs to stimulate the imagination?

Actually I much enjoy reading and do it often. However, most
historical or non-fiction books I have read fail to immerse me due to
many factors. In my case it really depends entirely upon the subject
matter.

An example of this is in regards to historical battles- I find it
difficult to envision full-scale battles on the pages of a book, often
there are just too many factors occuring at once. In that situation I
find it much more interesting to watch it played out on a television
screen. On the other hand if we are referring to a biography, I much
prefer to read a well-written account.

Partly, 
if an interesting book were shoved through your door, would you read it ?

Now, if it were not, how would you find it ?

Availability