When Evans is directly quoting or reporting what his citations say, they are factual and mostly accurate. Where Evans deviates from academic rigor is his and his guest's speculation and interpretation of the facts. He frequently dismisses sources that work against his thesis as dishonest without providing evidence on why, then using what he deems correct and truthful to weave his overall narrative. Evans also approaches every subject with the lens of every wealthy and white person as hateful and hostile while American disadvantaged minorities and poor have a presumption of total innocence and helplessness. He's done enough episodes that whenever a historical figure doesn't exactly fit that paradigm he'll waffle and just say 'It's complicated' and not engage. Evans also emphasizes salacious or vivid anecdotes for the sake of entertainment and engagement and not challenge their significance.

The example that stands out to me is Evans' series on Kaiser Wilhelm. When going over Wilhelm's childhood, Evans discusses Wilhelm's embarrassing sexual letters to his mother, and spends the rest of the episode framing Wilhelm as a sexually stunted and ungratified man, despite no further evidence of it coming out in his later life. Evans also mentions how Wilhelm supported worker movements but was anti Semitic, but is clearly uncomfortable with that kind of duality.

Behind the Bastards exists as a vehicle for Evans' team and audience to pass judgment on the people he highlights. Some episodes are better supported than others, and the ones that tend to be best are the ones Evans has studied and worked on as a journalist. As such, I take him more seriously when he talks about more modern figures and less so with further historical ones.