Skip to comments.Bill O’Reilly’s ‘Lincoln’ Book Banned From Ford’s Theatre Because Of ‘Mistakes’ ["Sloppy"]
Posted on 11/12/2011 9:19:45 PM PST by Steelfish
Bill OReillys Lincoln Book Banned From Fords Theatre Because Of Mistakes
By Steven Levingston November 12
Of all the places youd expect to find Bill OReillys new history Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever, Fords Theatre the site of the dreadful act should rank right at the top. But youd do better to search for the bestseller on Amazon because it has been banned from the theaters store.
The crime? OReilly and his co-author Martin Dugard have displayed a serial disregard for historical fact.
For a purported history of the assassination an unsanitized and uncompromising ... no spin American story, as the authors put it, Killing Lincoln is sloppy with the facts and slim on documentation, according to a study conducted by Rae Emerson, the deputy superintendent of Fords Theatre National Historic Site, which is a unit of the National Park Service.
Other Lincoln experts also have sounded off. In a review published in the November issue of North & South The Official Magazine of the Civil War Society, historian Edward Steers Jr. cites many instances where the book strays from documented history, then asks, If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in Killing Lincoln?
By taking on Lincoln, OReilly and Dugard have set themselves up for avid scrutiny. Few presidents, indeed few subjects, are as voluminously researched and fought over as Lincoln, and have as many amateur and professional specialists eager to display their startling command of minutiae. Steers notes that more than 16,000 books and articles have been written about Lincoln, with more than 125 volumes on the assassination.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
When did the communist left decide to be concerned about revisionist history? They’ve been preaching it for 50 years. What little American history still being taught in “schools” is nothing but pure bovine scatology.
How unprofessional. Wonder if BOR plays fast and loose with his ‘facts’ as he puts together his dog and pony show on FOX as well.
O'Reilly isn't someone I would turn to for original information. Everything he does is derivative even when he's quite correct about things he's willing to pontificate about.
I had hoped this WaPo piece would be more informative about the poor scholarship. The acreage of Dr. Mudd's farm? The number of times Our American Cousin had played at Fords before the fateful interrupted performance? I can dismiss those sorts of irrelevancies by concluding O'Reilly's book is like a lot of his work. An arrested adolescent's equivalent to children's literature, as O'Reilly would dismiss them, "for 'the Folks.'"
“Edward Steers, Jr. a renown [sic] author in American history, including Abraham Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln’s Assassination, World War II and the Home Front.”
Edward Steers, Jr., talked about his book, Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln
C-SPAN Video Library
The article does not give one example of an error. One person admitted that he had not read the book. Article is critical for the book’s lack of footnotes.... Which is stunning since this article had no support... Did you read the article?
Only thing you got to know about Lincolns assasination was he was killed by a famous actor who go his career from his daddy, who hated Republicans, and wanted the Government to keep blacks enslaved. In essence Sean Penn.
I also noticed there was a book about Lincoln the Vampire Slayer.
Ted Baxter strikes again!
I’d be interested to see hear Mark Levin’s father’s take on it. He himself authored a book about Lincoln. I’d trust his view more than this article but it doesn’t surprise me. O’Reilly is arrogant and if this is true, probably believed no one would call him on it.
Your comments saved me from doing so, thank you.
Well, the Washington Post gets facts wrong and misspells words every freaking day. I guess that means we should ignore everything you print because of it.
But, the WaPo's writer can't write, himself.
"According to Steers, the authors misidentified theater owner John Fords chief carpenter as James J. Clifford when his name actually was James J. Gifford."
HE can write. I CAN’T READ.
Levingston didn’t have a problem with the liar who wrote a book about Sarah Palin...
This is the result of amateur historians fishing in waters that are way in over their head.
Not having any footnotes alone seems like a strong mark against the book. I know that more and more pop history books don’t bother documenting their sources, but it also strikes me as a poor practice that cheapens a book. From the article, it also seems like it was also sloppily researched, based mostly off of second or third hand sources, as opposed to the myriads of original information, legal documentation, and interviews out there.
What a scam! According to the article, Bill O’Reilly “researched” his book by reading all of the other books written about Lincoln and then wrote his book. Seriously, what new information could O’Reilly possibly reveal? All of the players have been dead for 100 years or more!
I feel sorry for all of the genuine historians without famous names that did all of the hard work and actually researched their books just to see O’Reilly take their work and re-word it into a best-seller and make millions while doing it. Plus, he’s going to “write” two more books!
Another thing, his TV show seems like a commercial for his books. I can’t turn the channel quick enough when he’s plugging his books. He no sooner finishes plugging the last book and he’s then plugging the next one.
I notice that the detractors, classic bureaucrats all, are long on generalities and short on specifics.
I wonder if their own books have sold as well.
Who are these historical giants?
One final thought. I read about 75 books a year, equally divided between fiction and non-fiction.
Damn, I have just made a research error. Can't divide 75 books equally in half. But I don't care.
I have yet to read a single book that did not have an error of fact, grammar, spelling or typo. I have never written a book or won a Pulitzer Prize, but I manage to find the "faulty research." I also manage to enjoy most books.
“How unprofessional. Wonder if BOR plays fast and loose with his facts as he puts together his dog and pony show on FOX as well.”
OReilly cherry picks a word or sentence, changes the context and then makes his point.
My wife bought me one of his books several years ago. It was terrible. Many of the “points” were infantile.
thanks for making me laugh!
No! John Wilkes Booth was the handsomest stage matinee of his day and a very good actor. He came from an acting family so it’s not surprising he went into the business. Now a complete political idiot, yes, but neither a bad actor or a nepotist.
His name is mudd now...
What’s wrong with that sentence?
Sorry. Didn’t read the next post.
I didn’t realize the editors of the magazine “North and South...” are communists.
Putting together some books for a 14 year old boy for Christmas. Bishop’s “The Day Lincoln Was Shot” is on that list. I read it at about that age (more than 50 years ago) and am wondering if it is still considered “non-fiction” today, or should I drop it from my list?
Thanks in advance
Now that is funny.
“The history is well-documented.”
But is it true?
The older the book, the less politically correct it is likely to be.
Yes, I read the article. While no specifics were given, the fact that Ford's Theatre banned it is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that BOR did a lousy job.
From the WP article: ‘Other Lincoln experts also have sounded off. In a review published in the November issue of North & South The Official Magazine of the Civil War Society, historian Edward Steers Jr. cites many instances where the book strays from documented history, then asks, If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in Killing Lincoln?’
You say the article had no support - how about Edward Steers Jr.? Didn't you read the article???
Yep, unprofessional. Someone of BOR’s age and experience should have seen to it that the book was written correctly. Hard to believe that ‘North and South’ magazine would be so critical if there wasn't something to it. Are you insinuating the criticism is politically motivated?
As far as being a ‘newbie’, I've been around long enough to know that BOR is a pompous blowhard who does not do FOX or conservatives any favors.
I guess he wants to do it live...
That was my thought also, just wasn’t sure.
Can the author of this article give one example from the North and South article? Or is that too much to ask from a Journalist? Yes I did read the post and I also earched the net. The same story is posted everywhere, but I did find one source that stated the Steers' article contains a list of ten errors. It seems you have to subscribe to North and South magazine to read the original article. Steers bases his 10 errors on when BOR ues source material the he does not agree with or considers a secondary source.
So once again a journalist repeats a claim and does not research or find a secondary source. And we wonder how the Media gets away with the Cain harassment coverage... they do it all the time.
Ford’s Theater IS selling the book.’