Not related to the article. But can anyone shed light on why every other article I see starts with "an oral history of"? If it is written isn't it no longer oral history.
You're being overly literal. The definition of "oral history" in this context is telling a story through the personal experiences and recollections of people who were there.
It bugs me, too. Nowadays, "An oral history of X" just means "We interviewed multiple people related to X, and here is a written article containing some of their quotes."
That's a lot different from what the Oral History Association describes in its principles and best practices, where the focus is on preserving sound recordings of interviews:
NYT is still a notch above "You wont believe the history..." or "Your jaw will drop when you find out about...", but they need some hook to make you curious.
> The verdict was still out on social media. One user tweeted "Why do I keep getting these in the mail? Nonsense." Another argued "I quite like these coupons, they're a nice treat."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_history