But, Huan Yi, you haven't even tried to answer your own question. You've given us a single source article about another article that isn't really quoted. The Fox article does let us know that the New York times article was properly researched with large numbers of on the record sources that have backed up their statements with their names. The Fox article gives far more space to to counter statements given by the President's spokesperson. It lets us wonder how much of this response was given to and printed by The Times, which routinely asks for comment about such things.
If you were a history teacher, you would, of course, have to be familiar with and understanding of both sides of the issue. Not Simply The Fox News version, otherwise you would be unable to offer much of an historical perspective on the the conversation not only about the banking and economic crisis, but about the nature of the left-right dialogue from which this crisis emerges. You would have to come to grips with the relationship that both sides of the ideological divide have with the press, and the validity that there is or is not inherent in each position.
I don't know that the best historians are apolitical, but an historian who tries to understand everything with some sympathy, seems to casts a brighter light on events. You can hate Hitler — I do, though I grew up around some folk that thought the man was a great man, and had been unjustly vilified — but unless you understand him and his milieu with some sympathy, you've done nothing to prevent such a thing from happening again. The Versailles Treaty, war reparations and so on went a long way toward creating a lot of the hostility the bloomed into WWII twenty years later. We learned enough to do things differently after WWII. Though there were other reasons as well.
Nor is it a bad think to try to think like a history teacher rather than a political partisan, and try to see things from both sides (or many sides), and to get some notion about how everybody is busy in the common project of constructing of creating together a common history. It's sad that Presidents so often gain that perspective when they're leaving office, and don't have it while they're going through it. I think doing so changes the world around you by filling it with with folks who are, intentionally or not, your allies rather than your adversaries. If you can choose this sort of world to live in — and I believe you can, because the change is purely personal and internal — then you can add something by your presence.
This is one of the reasons why the study of history is not a waste of time, and why we should study it in school, and why we should continue to study it as adults. And why we should each teach history after our fashion, if we can achieve that perspective at least sometimes in our own lives.
I hope my contribution was worth your time.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven