How can well-regarded prizewinners, credentialled to the nth degree, write one piece of nonfiction trash after another? How can their fans lap it up?
As has often been noted here, it has to do with evidence handling. I used to think that evidence management was an ethical issue. Now, I wonder if evidence handling is a "medical" issue, a go/no go proposition that can be tested as easily and simply as color blindness.
If you don't have it, maybe you're not going to be able to fake it or develop any. By the same token, your devoted readers, those that are similarly "blind," will not care about evidence handling.
I'm on this because a psych professor suggests that we make "the proper calibration of evidence" (his term) part of IQ measurement. I say make it a whole test of its own and let it be the first step before enrolling someone in any history or journalism program.