historians or storytellers

"When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."

According to the issue the historians do not really dig history but rather construt stories. Believers of this phenomenon may support the issue, but I, personally, do not feel that the issue leads in correct direction and hence this reader dismisses and rejects the claims made in the issue. I would like to assert that all historians are not storytellers yet some of them may be storytellers but they are those, who dont possess adequate knowledge or apply their knowledge in a synchronized way. Again being some of them storytellers does not imply that all are story-tellers.
I dont think that the statement provide sufficient information about the scenario. Events happened centuaries before the existence of present age are also a part of history and events happened in the near past are also a part of history. But the way we derive conclusions in both the scenario are very different from each other. Stories about events happened years before the existence of human being are not being told by the ancestors and hence do not propogate as inheritence rather they are based on scientific clues and observations. For example, When we study history of a particular area, lets say we examine the prints of a mammel on the rock, we look for some clues and then we try to connect clues with each-other to arrive at some conclusion about what could have occured in the past based on the clues at hand. Then we logically try to establish its connection with some other events which are considered to have happened in the area. We examine the clue critically, we examine other possibilities, we also think critically the controversies,if born, because of mismatch of the scenario being analyzed and other past events and finally arrive at one solution which can give least controversial solution. In the whole process, we derive the time of events by scientific methods which have more than satisfactory probablity of being correct. we derive conclusions logically and where we find controversy and if we do not find one particular answer, we leave that as unsolved or unknown. In the whole process of arriving at the facts, everything is done logically and should be correct.
Again when we refer to history of near past, like of before 2-3 centuaries, we use a totally different way to driving us to facts. We learn facts in books, we see some signs of historical importance and in a sense we inherit stories of past by our ancestors. Then we try to connect them logically and critically with the stories being propogated through generations. As in this scenario, we are considering only the history of near past, we can assume such propogated stories to be true to a certain extent.
The problem arises when we refer to the history of the such a time, where we can not find adequate signs or left prints to derive things logically and also we cant believe on the truthness of the propogated stories. In that scenario, we can say that talking of history is less like talking of facts and more like talking of possibilities.
Whether a historical so-called fact is possibility or fact, very much depends on the time of the scenario, historical signs,symbols and prints present there, the adequecy of those symbols, events happened later, how can those event can add flaw to the symbols, facts, evidence in hand. But still, historians do not construct stories if they find it impossible to arrive at a fact, they leave it as possibility and unknown matter. Historians are those who derive facts and uncovers unseen, unimagined events before us to a extent they possiblly can, after which they talk about possibility but do not tell story. They try to derive things as much as they can but nothing in the world can be pressumed to be perfect. Hence even if little flaws may exist in the claims of historians but they can not be considered story-tellers. Hence calling historians like a storytellers can not be accepted as correct.