Are they trustworthy in the sense that they would not unintentionally misrepresent the facts? Then no. This History Channel is not trustworthy in that respect.
The subject of History, is well...subjective. It is the story told in a Civio-centric way. Facts are conveniently glossed over or ignored all the time in History Books and the History Channel is no different in that respect.
Would they claim that the Pilgrims were the first Settlers in America. You bet they would because most of their fact-finders would buy into that myth that is perpetuated in many seemingly credible sources. It's not an intentional mistake on their part, it's just that they aren't going to dig deep enough to find out about the settlement at Roanoke being the first Settlers in America.
So, you'll get a story, but not necessarily the whole story...but it will be truthful as far as they know it is.
And as far as Mythbusters, they aren't entirely scientific in their methods. There have been a lot of Myths they have "busted" that I can prove in my own house are actually true. There are times that there is clearly bias on their parts when they want to debunk something, that they don't consider alternative (and simpler) ways that it can be done. That's not quite the fault of the History Channel, but it is a fault I personally have found time and time again with Mythbusters. Alas, they are only human. They can't be right all the time!



