In one of his podcasts, he talks about the "pendulum of history" and how it swings, depending on the time, between more story (ie more emotion and look as to feelings of the time) or more fact (ie 10k people died in this battle). He mentioned that he preferred to be on the more story side; giving eyewitness accounts and showing the emotion of the history. I wouldn't put him near Gladwell though, but on the more story side of the pendulum.
I think there's a difference between Dan Carlin's "I'm interested in exploring what it felt like to be in some moment of history, and why the people there made the decisions they made" and Malcolm Gladwell's "I'm going to cherrypick facts until my 'history' fits the just-so fable I'm trying to tell".
Being on the "story" side is IMO a large part of his podcast's appeal. You can get the bare facts of a battle or event on Wikipedia, and that's interesting in its own way. After listening to an episode on Carlin's podcast, I usually go look it up on Wikipedia, to get a different picture.
But talking about the people who were in that event, leaning heavily on eyewitness accounts and primary sources, all of that makes the events come alive. I think both are valid and important viewpoints on history. I think history in school would be a lot more interesting if it took a similar approach.
Looking at an historical event at more of a ground-level is nowhere near the same thing as giving outright incorrect information.
