If I were Niall Ferguson (I feel I deserve some of the blame here, I brought his name up first), then I'd take the £1.3million a year, the TV career and the cushty post at Harvard as well, if I'm honest. As I said, I don't think much of lots of his books- but I can see the motivation for being controversial when he's got a six figure advance fee dangled infront of him to write a book on something he's never researched in his puff.
I am still convinced he is an excellent financial historian. His books on the Rothschilds, the one which came from his D.Phil thesis, the one entitled 'Paper and Iron' and his latest effort on the role of money in world history are all extremely well written and well thought out. When he descends into writing about whatever will make him a few quid, then his conclusions become pretty mad, to be honest. He will always be a divisive character, but he's aware of this, and infact does his best to cultivate that image- because that is what gets his name banded around, and further swells his paycheck and his profile. I've met the guy, and in reality, his views are no more radical than any staunch Conservative. I don't agree with them by and large- but he is no 'apologist for mass murder' as some have made out. What he says to further his career, I don't agree with, and I cannot see myself ever stooping to the level of being controversial for the sake of it, but I cannot blame the guy for doing what he perceives to be the best for his career and his bank balance.