It is certainly an interesting, but not new debate about historical accuracy. I personally do not believe that there is a subjective truth in history and I avoid using the term ‘historical fact’. My take on this is that historic events are as perceived by the beholder and subjective to their background, education, race, creed, sex, age, environment and a most of everything else that shapes an individual. In short, we all see the world around us differently, and therefore all end up with a slightly or wildly different version of events.
This governs how we record the events, how we remember them and how we recall them in later life. You only have to listen to two people talking about a football match to see this.
In terms of historical sources, both primary and secondary, we know that documentation is not accurate. Either by design, error or manipulation, documentation can be misleading. In history, words will tell us a story of the past that not necessarily happened, but what someone want you to think what happened, or how we wished what had happened. I once read a document that said a double decker bus had been found on the moon.
The written word is the instrument we all play. It’s incredibly powerful, some say mightier than the sword. It can start a war, tell you I love you or can lead you to believe what someone wants you to think.
I certainly do not rely solely on what the documentation has to say when object from the past can and do often tell very different story that the accepted wisdom. While the written word will enhance our knowledge, studying an object will enhance our understanding.
Which leads to the question, is historical accuracy important? To me its not, because then you can open the subject up for a discussion and explore other possibilities that may or may not deepen your understanding.