How does this sub feel about the role of the historian?

Hello all, I have lurked for a bit and have noticed some constant themes. I recently graduated with a history degree and I find myself constantly frustrated with how many sources are loaded with bias. One thing that really bothers me is the amount of people that have gone through the primary sources and picked which ones are convenient to their narrative. I think this is especially true with modern historians.<br><br>I think the role of a historian is to present the historical event and the primary sources in an objective and neutral way. I feel like far too many "historians" fail to do this. Instead, they go through the primary sources and pick out the convenient ones to validate their agenda. I find this to be dishonest and a corruption of what history should be IMO. I hope I have explained this in a way that everyone understands. <br><br>How does everyone feel about this?