SRS,

Both A&E (Biography) and the History Channel (History's Mysteries) have done Robin Hood shows in the last few years. The thing is, both those shows had to suggest that there was a historical person because of the nature of the show--biographical and historical, not folkloric and legendary. So they did include the ambiguity we've spoken of, but they usually disguise it by finishing each section with a line like: "so, although not all historians are convinced, there's a good chance this obscure churchyard is Robin Hood's final resting place." It's not inaccurate, because it's true that "not all historians are convinced," but it would be more honest to say that "no historians are convinced!"

TV docs pick interviewees from a wide range of people. Usually they've got one historian whose carefully-edited interviews present only the more positive side of their arguments (I know this 'cause I've read their books), one re-enactor who tells you how Robin Hood "would have done things," one neo-pagan spokesperson who talks about the more mystical side of Robin Hood, and the current Sheriff of Nottingham, who wants people to visit the Robin Hood theme park there and so does a good deal of public speaking about Robin Hood in Nottingham. They don't really make it clear who's who, because they can just list J.C. Holt (an eminent Cambridge historian), John Matthews (a well-known neo-pagan author and spiritual workshop leader), and Richard Whatsisname (a re-enactor; I really did forget his name) as "Author:" with the title of their respective Robin Hood books. It looks like they're all equally expert.

Both shows actually do a rather good job of covering many aspects of the legend, but both try to leave viewers with the general impression that there was a historical figure because they are shows dedicated to history and biography.