History has a beauty to it. The investigation and theorizing that falls under the category of "punditry" when relating to the present, is allowed to put on the robes of truth and art when relating to the past. This is a matter of proximity and sensitivity, rather than some innate ability for the past to show itself in true light once a healthy period has elapsed. In fact, history written as it happens, journalism, is often the closest to proper analysis that there will ever be of a given event or personage. This is due to the importance of taking account of the zeitgeist of a time or event, something that comes naturally to a contemporary observer. A later historian has to apply himself not only to getting his facts straight regarding an event, but also needs to study the cultural and social history of the time and place to get at the problem of properly seeing an event holistically. As often as not, this leads the historian to the often absurd observation that a man was a "man of his time" whereas a contemporary observer could not hope to conclude with such a banality.