Hayden White would distinguish between a hollywood narrative in which a false(r) history is deliberately created for entertainment or sensatinalism, and an attempt at an accurate account, regardless of how biased it is. There's a difference between intentionally crafting a narrative and expressing one you have formed through your experiences. Bezos is suggesting the former, which is quite different than what White was talking about. Not that that proves anything, but you're dismissing what she's saying completely by misapplying a theory.
The differentiation between a "hollywood narrative" and the "attempt at an accurate account", however, brings us a new set of problems: Who gets to decide which is which? Do we have to rely on authorial intention? Do we rely on reception?
Either way doesn't allow us to qualify what kind of effort we have at hand without grounding said qualification on our own biases. If we believe that the account is fundamentally flawed, we are free to assume that a hollywood narrative has been deliberately crafted to misrepresent "historical truth" (which would be the Bezos side). If we believe that the account is fundamentally correct, regardless of bias and some factual flaws, then we have to assume that the intent behind it was to give an accurate account of history.
My whole point is that neither authorial intention nor pure reception can offer us a definitive assessment of a given accounts "truthfulness" or overall expressed content. Consequently, this lets me regard both sides as biased. Both have an agenda, and both represent things a certain way, thus necessarily misrepresenting others in the process. Who I think is more believable in their account is then a question of my own choice, depending on my own inclinations, biases and presuppositions.
P.S.: I do not regard any of the quoted bits as a theory that is to be applied. Instead, they introduce two distinct elements: reflexion and self-reflexion. Theory thus introduces a mode of thought, not a structural base for analysis. White's own categories are certainly structural (and structuralist) and to be applied, but they are crafted for his own analysis of the history of historiography (and therefore notably absentin my quotations. They, however, are not the transferable meaning that is valid in for more contexts than just his intended analyses.
