The appalling relativism you mention has had its benefit in making writers a lot more aware of alternative views of the same subject, which must be advantageous, while being very destructive in other ways. However, I stick by my belief that more and better history is being written and read today than at any other time.
I thought I'd handle this issue separately. I agree. Relativism is relative. ;-j It's neither good or bad, it's just an intellectual tool. It can be used well or poorly. It's when it's used to justify the dismissal of all the intellectual tools from the past century that I find fault. Personally, they only way we could determine whether more and better history is being written today is to:
1. Count the numbers both past and present, which means we'd have to define what constitutes a historical work to be counted, and
2. Come to some agreement of what constitutes 'good history' that can apply to the past works as well as the present. The relativists would say such an effort is impossible and even if it was, it would be just our opinions. Such ideas are very destructive to critical thinking.