It seems to me that the 'business of history' is big business if managed and manipulated as theater, drama, entertainment or infotainment. I for one have always enjoyed the work of Ken Burns, from "the Civil War", to perhaps my favorite, "Corps ofDiscovery" and of course other infotainment efforts with the popularization of elevating the heroic aspects of the American experience in WWII, with producers from Speilberg to Brokaw and the like. All of those producers used Stephen Ambrose extensively as an Historical Expert and commentator through ubiquitous vignettes of interviews with S.A., where S.A. would give dramatic oral explanation of historical events, and with great panache I might say.
But as the pursuit of monetizing and cashing in on the infotainment aspects of such historical productions seems to naturally lead, embellishments were made, and Mr Ambrose came under heavy scrutiny for 'plagiarism' and 'inaccuracies'. For a thumbnail overview one can scan the still under controversy material being continually revised on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Ambrose Particularly what seems obvious as embellishment of his relationship with IKE, becomes very problematic about the credibility of S.A. This in my view is a pity in the sense that it detracts from the otherwise popularization of a new enthusiasm for History, so rich and yet so controversial at every turn. The showmanship aspects of S.A. are on full display in his many appearances in various media, and yet so vulnerable to the glare of 'authentication'.
RAN IS NO KEN BURNS! Ran runs a website many of us are in various ways attached to for entertainment, sharing information, and good fellowship connection We have some heady or interesting writing contributions from some pretty smart people from time to time. But I really don't think any of those 'fairly smart people' really look at this site with the view that it is a forum for serious academic 'historical' credentialed source material. Do any of you really think that? And, it is fairly obvious that a bit of promotional activities take place from time to time on Ran's GCA.com. Books are mentioned and interest is promoted in some commercial material from time to time. And as always, if you choose to buy a book or some other aspect of membership or patronize some golf course based on discussion here, Caveat Emptor. I for one do buy and patronize because I like the people or accept the merits of what is on offer, based on good will and enjoyment of the person or source of the offer. So, isn't it best to 'take it for what it is worth' in these cases where you choose to support something? I feel contributions to Ran's web site are well worth it. So I do because I want to. I see no aspect of fraud, just entertainment and connection to nice people and interesting situations.
PHIL YOUNG IS CERTAINLY A LIGHT YEAR FROM STEPHEN AMBROSE as credible or capable of presenting any truly academia rated or respected historical information. S.A. does have a large body of work, much of it leaning more towards a sort of commercial historical effort to sell books and his reputation as a great storyteller. He branded himself with great success. Phil may have a schtik as a infotainment writer of something as mundane as his look backs at Tillie, and whatever other stuff he has compiled in a few published compilations. But, let's face it. He seems to have no historian credentials of any widespread academic recognition. Does he even have an undergrad degree in any era or subject of "History"?
You pays yer money and takes yer chances...