I mean, lots of historians also comment on present events. But I think one would have to be pretty much not a serious historian to think that a future historian is really going to value our contemporary takes more than their own later takes. Every historian knows that people who are living in their historical moment can only see so much of it. "Dear future historians: here is how you should think about this moment!" is a very silly vibe, and no future historians would find that anything but amusing.

There have been historians who have written works of contemporary analysis, somewhat presented as history. Marc Bloch, for example, wrote Strange Defeat in 1940, about the collapse of the French against the Germans in World War II, which was happening as he wrote it. It can be interesting to read. But his ability to assess the situation was undoubtedly hindered by his being in the middle of it himself, and his lack of access to anything like a totality of sources. It is read today as an interesting (if somewhat sad, as Bloch was killed by the Gestapo in 1944) take on the French view of situation at the time by someone who was quite intelligent and tried to see it through a historian's eyes. But nobody today thinks that this is the real story of it, or the best way to think about it, or a real "history" of it.