I have a few questions for 20th century political historians:

How do historians usually work with 20th century political commentators? Are they good primary sources to understand the political opinions of the general public or do they just show the commentators' opinions? Are there any works that discuss how historiography should deal with political commentators? And how do you think future historians will use today's political commentators in their work?

Also, a followup: do religious sermons and homilies work in a similar way as political commentators in historiography?

As I read more history and read answers on here I am realising that I don't know how to do so. That is: I used to work in Sales and there are ways of reading requests for tender that tell you what's really going on rather than what's written down. I know this is even more true in academic reading where there are things like Marxism and Post-modernism as recently discussed here. How do I go about getting a grounding in what to read to understand more? Is this something that is covered in university textbooks? Or are there "How to Read History" books out there?

I'm sure this question has been asked over and over and over again and could probably even be solved with a simple Google search but I'd like a professional opinion. What exactly can you do with a history degree? What kind of jobs can one expect to succeed in with such a degree? What about more specific degrees like Japanese History and Culture, African History, etc.

I understand if this is a tiresome question, thanks anyways in advance!

What about the rebellions in the early phases of the Achaemenid Dynasty? I want to get clear why there were so many rebellions and if we can get a clear timeline. Their resistance to it means indeed how solid it was the Empire, even if poor noble Darius son of Xerxes I got killed for it.

But it is not only him, it is that many things Ktesias says are garbled since historians wrote from memory. But it seems as if there were rebellions in every succession until Artaxerxes III. The sons of Xerxes I fought and those of Artaxerxes I too. Artaxerxes II had a bastard brother too who could have rebelled even if by inaction and that got him killed later. Wasn't there a rebellion of Artapanus/Artabanus, who was either Xerxes I's uncle or the son of this uncle?

And... about Cyrus children. It seems clear that there was rebellion among these two. But I wonder if Darius had a good reason to rebel? If it is true Cambyses neither Bardiya had male children, and since by being with Cambyses, they were rebels against Bardiya and would not be forgiven... does this mean Darius did not bend the knee because they were already marked for death? And the hi-story of the usurper is just a coverup or the same attempt of fighting for the cause of the fallen leader when no male bloodline was available? Later Darius III can claim the crown due to his relation to the main family, but we do not know of Cambyses or Bardiya any more than we know of their sisters and daughters so, sadly in this extremely patriarchal society, did Darius and Gaumata really have no other choice but to follow their leaders' causes even if they were already in the grave?