I like this one from Taleb, and not only for its reminder that correlation doesn’t imply causality. We also find that there’s a lot more archaeological evidence of ancient civilizations in places that were accessible to well-heeled 19th-century European archaeologists. That doesn’t mean ancient civilizations didn’t exist elsewhere.
In applying this insight to history, it might be argued that historians are more discerning or more careful than journalists, so this shouldn’t be as much of a problem. However, many historians rely heavily on journalism of the past. Are they always as careful as they should be, evaluating these sources with an eye to challenging cultural frameworks or implicit biases?