By describing the negative view of the consultants as being widely held, Appelcline is showing his bias, that he and those in his echo chamber don't like Zak or Pundit on a personal level. I wonder how else this bias has influenced Appelcline's chronicling of RPG history.
Appelcline's telling of history is a description of his feelings, which I think is a questionable practice for someone who is coming to be regarded as the hobby's historian. I haven't read any other pages from Appelcline's books and I'm not inclined to read more after this misrepresentation.
If you want to know what the deal is with Zak S, click here.