I am a huge fan of Dan Carlin and his Hardcore History podcast. Its entertaining, informative, and makes learning about history accessible to people who might not otherwise. I think he does for history what Neil Degrasse Tyson does for science. With that being said, how to actual academics feel about his work? He has a lot of integrity in the sense that he always emphasizes he is not an academic, and his work should not be viewed as such. He wants to entertain, inspire, and get people interested in history. But considering the quality of his work and widespread appeal, I think a lot of people are actually learning their history from listening to him. Is he presenting history fairly? Do you see instances where his goal to make history entertaining comes into conflict with the truth of the subjects he talks about?