With the way history is now recorded, modern history will all be peer reviewed and contradicted, supported by properly cited sources, and debated; but that makes it seem(sorry for lack of the proper word) too sterile. Almost as if its absent from human irrationality. Do you think there is something to be said for historians with an obvious slant? A historian with an obvious bias would elucidate the 'feeling(again for lack of a smarter verb)' at the time of writing.
Would love to be pointed towards good sources for the history of history.
First post here so be nice.
That is one of the big reasons for the popularity of popular history with a clear agenda. People so enjoy bold ideas written strongly. The problem is that it is very hard to get your facts right if you do this. There is a danger of history becoming a series of "hot takes".
Where I agree with you is that historical training often neglects writing skills leading to a dry, technical style. The PhD process seems to erase risk taking and gives young historians a model that alienates a wider audience. Often as academics are they are better able to balance passion and scholarship. In that regard have a look at Tony Judt or Eric Hobsbawn.
(just an aside: questions about historiography are not "meta": meta would be for posts about the subreddit, e.g. rules, moderation)