Stories and Storytellers discussion

Journalists that are close to their subjects and can enter worlds that historians can only analyze after the fact. One is closer, but can miss the whole picture, a other can see the broader picture and maybe have better access to verified facts at the cost of true intimacy with the subject. Which do you prefer ?

Good question. I have little time for domestic journalists in general but the question has to be considered in terms of what they see that has historical significance. You have reminded me of a book I have called Despatches from the Barricades by the BC's John Simpson. I go this at the time of east European turmoil of 89 / 90. For me, John Simpson being an eyewitness to these startling events and rapidly producing eyewitness accounts must be of great use to the future historian who intends to delve deeper into the subject of those profound historical changes. Have anyone used Simpsons eyewitness accounts as part of their research? I would like to know.