Bill O'Reily's historical book gets banned

[Sensia]

News link

Ford's Theatre bookstore bans Bill O'Reilly's book on Lincoln assassination over 'inaccuracies'

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 4:47 PM on 14th November 2011

He may be known for occupying the 'no-spin zone,' but Bill O'Reilly is being slammed for spinning a web of mistakes about Abraham Lincoln.Mr O'Reilly's book, Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever, is still riding high on the New York Times best-seller list after nearly two months.
It is second only to Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs biography in the nonfiction category.

Bold, fresh: Critics have stood up to rip Bill O'Reilly, right, for his book Killing Lincoln for its lack of references and footnotes to back up its claims

But a few critics have stood up to rip the Fox News talking head for the book's lack of references and footnotes to back up its claims.

In a review of the book for the National Park Service, Ford's Theatre deputy superintendent Rae Emerson outlines the inaccuracies, debunking them with Historical citations.
Top seller: Killing Lincoln is still riding high on the New York Times best-seller list after nearly two months

Due to Ms Emerson’s concerns, the book has been banned from the Ford's Theatre bookstore, The Washington Post reported.


One example is the book's mentioning of Lincoln in the Oval Office, a room in the White House’s West Wing that wasn't built until 44 years after Lincoln's assassination.
In a review for the Civil War magazine North & South, Edward Steers Jr also spotted deviations from Lincoln's history.
Mr Steers, a historian who has written several books on Lincoln, chided Mr O'Reilly and co-author Martin Dugard for using a 'few dozen secondary books that range from excellent to positively dreadful.'
He wrote: 'If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong?'
On Amazon.com, users are also panning the book over its factual errors. Out of the site’s 1,127 customer reviews, 844 gave Killing Lincoln one star.
But the negativity surrounding his latest book won’t keep the O'Reilly Factor host from tackling more presidential projects.

Blocked: Due to the inaccuracies, O'Reilly's book has been banned at the Ford's Theatre, the site of Lincoln's assassination

Henry Holt and Co., which published Killing Lincoln, said in October that Mr O'Reilly is planning another book on presidents 'very much in keeping' with 'Killing Lincoln.'
A call to the Holt publicity office was not immediately returned.

The publishing house’s president, Stephen Rubin, said: 'They will be history told in a narrative, novelistic fashion.'
O'Reilly's previous releases include Pinheads and Patriots, Culture Warrior and the memoir A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity.
'SPIN' CYCLE: SOME INACCURACIES IN KILLING LINCOLN

• O'Reilly's book claims that Civil War Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant 'will never meet again' after the 'surrender meeting' at the Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 - but they did meet again - the very next day.
• In Chapter 19, the book asserts that Ford's Theatre 'burned to the ground in 1863.' While it was consumed by fire, the structure was still standing.
• There are also multiple references to Lincoln being in the Oval Office, a room in the White House that wasn't built until 1909, 44 years after Lincoln's death.
• The book says the formal name of Ford's Theatre is 'Ford's Opera House,' when its actual formal name became 'Ford’s New Theatre' when it was rebuilt following an 1862 fire.
• The play Our American Cousin, which was watched by Lincoln at the time of his assassination was performed seven times at Ford's Theatre prior to that night, not eight as O'Reilly's book claims.

[CuteOldGuy]

Bill O'Reilly is a huge self-important pompous blowhard. Kinda reminds me of TTH.

[Jackie S]

According to O'Reilly on The Factor tonight, The Bookstore states that the report is false, the book is not banned, and is selling well.

The four "major" errors have been corrected. In my opinion, this is the height of pettyness.

Typical Liberal smear. I wonder who fact checked Hillary, Bill, and Obama's books?

[anaximander]

As if he's a historian. History buffs will want
this book for the laugh factor.

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by anaximander

As if he's a historian. History buffs will want
this book for the laugh factor.

I know, and what was funny was several of the historians who read his book only account for a minimum amount of errors, apparently there are more than what is just being reported.

JackieS, he has not corrected the mistakes as he is reporting.


Quote: "For those trying to buy O’Reilly’s book at Ford’s Theatre, it’s a case of upstairs, downstairs.
While there had been initial reports that the theater where Lincoln was shot had banned the best-seller from being sold at the site because of claims of historical inaccuracies, the museum is still offering the book in one of its shops, Ford’s Theatre publicist Lauren Beyea said.
How that works, Beyea noted, stems from the fact that the National Park Service and the Ford’s Theatre Society operate the site in a joint public-private partnership — and that means what’s sold in the lobby shop is a different story from what’s available in the basement store." Politico

[I B Hankering]

Sic Semper Tyrannis! Whereas Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (2001), by Edward Steers, is arguably the best book out on the assassination, but it too has many faults (typos and overreaching conclusions). So far, every book on this subject is wanting – why should O’Reilly’s book be any different?

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Sic Semper Tyrannis! Whereas Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (2001), by Edward Steers, is arguably the best book out on the assassination, but it too has many faults (typos and overreaching conclusions). So far, every book on this subject is wanting – why should O’Reilly’s book be any different?

It is my understanding that Bill was trying to pass his book off as an accurate historical account. There is a difference between simple spelling typos and far reaching conclusions and just outright misinformation such as him talking about the oval office several times when in fact the oval office was built after Lincoln died. Not too mention many other inaccuracies and total misinformation such as that.

I could care less if his book is selling well, there are lots of fictional books out there that sell well.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

It is my understanding that Bill was trying to pass his book off as an accurate historical account. There is a difference between simple spelling typos and far reaching conclusions and just outright misinformation such as him talking about the oval office several times when in fact the oval office was built after Lincoln died. Not too mention many other inaccuracies and total misinformation such as that.

I could care less if his book is selling well, there are lots of fictional books out there that sell well.

It can be argued that Steers' "far reaching conclusions" are indeed factual errors. Robert Redford's film "The Conspirator" was also filled with "factual" errors, but it was, after all, only a Hollywood film meant to entertain those who have drank the Kool-aid.

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It can be argued that Steers' "far reaching conclusions" are indeed factual errors. Robert Redford's film "The Conspirator" was also filled with "factual" errors, but it was, after all, only a Hollywood film meant to entertain those who have drank the Kool-aid.

Robert Redford never claimed that his movie was an factual historical documentary. It was a movie for entertainment purposes.


Historian Edward Steers Jr. explains with regard to Bill O'reily's book:

"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?"

For instance:

"Mary Surratt was never shackled or hooded at any time. She was never imprisoned aboard the Montauk. None of this is true."

Other inaccuracies include the number of performances the play that Lincoln was attending, how big Samual Mudd's farm was, and the use of the "Oval Office," which didn't exist until 44 years after Lincoln's 1865 murder.
Oh well, none of this will matter to O'Reilly since he's already been offered to write another presidential history.
Whatever make$ money, right? Who cares about accuracy!

[Marshall]

Rush Limbaugh calls him "Ted Baxter".....thank GOD he's not a conservative, then these trolls petty attacks might hurt my feelings........HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

Robert Redford never claimed that his movie was an factual historical documentary. It was a movie for entertainment purposes.


Historian Edward Steers Jr. explains with regard to Bill O'reily's book:

"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?"

For instance:

"Mary Surratt was never shackled or hooded at any time. She was never imprisoned aboard the Montauk. None of this is true."

Other inaccuracies include the number of performances the play that Lincoln was attending, how big Samual Mudd's farm was, and the use of the "Oval Office," which didn't exist until 44 years after Lincoln's 1865 murder.
Oh well, none of this will matter to O'Reilly since he's already been offered to write another presidential history.
Whatever make$ money, right? Who cares about accuracy!

YOU can call Redford's movie entertainment, but it has a biased political message. Steer's book is probably the better book. I don't know, because I haven't read O'Reilly's book (nor do I intend too). The point is, Steers' book has it's own subset of problems, arguably factual, that cause the reader to doubt the legitimacy of his conclusions.

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

YOU can call Redford's movie entertainment, but it has a biased political message. Steer's book is probably the better book. I don't know, because I haven't read O'Reilly's book (nor do I intend too). The point is, Steers' book has it's own subset of problems, arguably factual, that cause the reader to doubt the legitimacy of his conclusions.

I get your point, and hopefully you got mine.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

I get your point, and hopefully you got mine.

Yes. From the beginning.

[rockbass]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

According to O'Reilly on The Factor tonight, The Bookstore states that the report is false, the book is not banned, and is selling well.

in the gift shop with the other joke souvenirs.

in the MUSEUM, it's not for sale, still.
they insist on serious factual work.