Let me respond again.

I usually get a l lot of negative reaction when I introduce something with which lay readers are not familiar. 

I don’t have a pro-dictator bias. It just seems like that because I’m correcting articles that were already one-sided. History's not a pros and cons analysis anyway. Historians want to know why and how. 

Also, I don’t use one explanatory model (like Marxism, World Systems Theory, Dependency Theory, Modernization Theory, etc.) solely. I don’t keep my mind closed to one interpretation. 

If an article chronicles any facts, I leave them if they’re accurate. But they must be explained in a context. Statements like ‘he’s an authoritarian dictator bent on staying in power at all cost rejected by the international community’ will go in favor of statements like ‘because of his controversial policies he’s been ejected from the Commonwealth at Britain’s behest'. 

If an article mentions that Mugabe has been seizing white-owned farms it must also mention that 4,500 white farmers own 70% in the land in a country of 13 million. The article must also explain why land reform is a touted goal in the Third World. To many, that unacceptable because that's pro-Mugabe POVing. But quoting anti-Mugabe insults by as many famous people as possible is possible because it's a fact that they said those things. 

Some can’t tolerate that. To them, Mugabe persecutes homosexuals; he’s a racist; he subverts democracy; he cracks down against NGOs; he rigs elections; he’s unmitigated evil; and he does that because he’s evil. 

There are not that many social historians who would accept such simplistic, sweeping conclusions based on superficialities.