Public historians and the great advertising corporation?

In Prof. Vance's class, a one-page article about the massacre of the MacIans in Glen Coe in 1962 was given to us. Prof. Vance asked us to compress the whole article into 80 words in terms of a plaque. We were divided into three groups and worked on the plaque separately within 20 minutes.

It is a smart way to show how public historians introduce a certain history to the public. Our group decided to demonstrate the "fact" of the massacre. So the information about the time when it happened, reason why it happened, way of how it happened, people who killed, and people who were killed were the main points put in our plaque. Comparing to the other two groups, these are also the main points they decided to put in their plaques. Although the way of constructing these information are obviously a little different among the three groups, the main tone is the same: as subjective as possible. To be honest, history is not as interesting as historical story or legend, and reading history written in this way is a little boring.

Prof. Vance plaque showed us the plaque he wrote later. It is much a little different from ours. The view on the massacre reflected from his plaque seems to stand on the side of the victims in Glen Coe, and two aspects are accented: the reason of the massacre and the end of the story. In terms of the reason, Prof. Vance stresses the role of the massacre, which is considered to be an example of punishment by the government when the chief of Glen Coe failed to show his loyalty to the King William III. When it comes to the end of the short article, Prof. Vance uses numbers of the victims and the escape of the others into hill to finish the whole plaque.

I think, the most interesting point in Prof. Vance's plaque is that it is not a complete story. There is no mention of what happened later to the people who escaped into the hill, like we did in our plaques, clearing that the Glen Coe was granted protection by the government later. However, this incompletion is very attractive to me because it actually evokes my interest and encourages me to find out more about the massacre. This is an good example to show how history is presented by historians, and the reaction to this presentation. 

When it comes to tourism, this reaction is one of the purposes public historians want to achieve for a historical site or museum project, because there is no doubt that money could help preserve the history. Then, whether public historians have become a part of the great advertising corporation of today? I have not figure out this interesting question I ask myself, but since it is interesting, I will pay much attention to it.