Bill O'Reilly's New Book, "Killing Lincoln."

[Lily]

Despite being in second place on the New York Times Bestseller list, the book is riddled with factual errors. You'd have thought he'd at least run it past a historian before going ahead with publication.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/bill-oreilly-killing-lincoln-errors_n_1091168.html?ref=books&ir=Books

[Richard]

I don't listen to O' Reilly, but I think since the source, Huff Post, is politically opposite of him, they use a bit of hyperbole in their claim.

Their titled article says:
Bill O'Reilly 'Killing Lincoln' Errors: Book Contains Plethora Of Factual Inaccuracies

What is that list Plethora of Factual Inaccuracies?

1. The authors write that General Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, commanders of the Union and Confederate forces, “will never meet again,” when in fact they did meet to discuss prisoners of war.

I'd like to see the context of this to determine the criticism as I could see where this could both be accurate or a misstatement.

2. The book claims that Ford’s Theatre burned down in 1863. It actually burnt down in 1862.

It burnt down at the end of 1862. Is that a big deal. End of 1862-beginning of 1863?

3. From “Killing Lincoln”: “Grant meets with Lincoln in the Oval Office.” The Oval Office wasn’t built until 1909, during the Taft administration.

I think this is a poor choice of words and they didn't research it. The Oval Office is recognized as the seat of power in the US.

4. The book names James J. Clifford as the chief carpenter of Ford’s Theatre. His name was actually James J. Gifford.

Oh boy. They used a C instead of a G. I guess they never heard of a typo?


5. The authors claim that the play “Our American Cousin” was performed eight times before Lincoln saw it; it was really performed seven times.

Another Oh Boy!


6. The book says that the farm owned by Samuel Mudd, a doctor convicted of conspiring in the assassination, was 500 acres. It was really only 217 acres.


Yet another insignificant factor. Amount of acreage, gimme a break..

I'd like to see a history book that has all of the facts right. History books, especially those whose history predates any living eyewitnesses, has to rely on other written material.

Maybe those minute discrepancies are a result of their source material.

I certainly do not think typos or property size or a number of times a play was performed discredits whatever important information is trying to be conveyed here.

Because of who he is, O' Reilly, is what makes this a big deal. Fortunately the average writer does not go through this agenda type scrutinization.

[Lily]

This is from the Washington Post. The errors could have been perhaps dismissed as trivial if this were a work of fiction. But when one purports to write history, a lot more care is called for. As for O'Reilly claiming his critics are simply political enemies just doesn't cut it, except that it should have made him even more diligent in getting everything right.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fords-theatre-historical-review-of-bill-oreillys-lincoln-book/2011/11/12/gIQAC604FN_story.html

[Richard]

Nov 15, 2011 12:50:41 GMT -5 Lily said:

This is from the Washington Post. The errors could have been perhaps dismissed as trivial if this were a work of fiction. But when one purports to write history, a lot more care is called for. As for O'Reilly claiming his critics are simply political enemies just doesn't cut it, except that it should have made him even more diligent in getting everything right.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fords-theatre-historical-review-of-bill-oreillys-lincoln-book/2011/11/12/gIQAC604FN_story.html

I claimed his critics are political enemies. Those "plethora" of errors are more incidental than anything of major significance.

Because of his popularity is why this attention is given.

He is only the co-author. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to co-write a book, and catch all the errors. I had to go back and forth with just my editor about 12-15 times before we got rid of 98% of them.

I have found errors in some of my favorite fictional books as well. Mostly when it is a series. The author forgets some specific details about some of his characters, or past events, and makes a mistake in remembering it. The only way I noticed this is because I've re-read them several times and caught them.

I would love to know how many of the "hack" journalists that reported on this actually read it, or just jumped on the wagon with others. If they did read it, was it out of sincere interest, or just to criticize? I wonder if any of them attempted this type of project?

What the "deputy superintendent of Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site" commented on were incidental.

The motive behind these reports are about who he is, not what he wrote.

[Richard]

It looks like they are carrying the book in the Gift Store: www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68334.html

[Lily]

I agree that there are very few books that don't have at least a couple of typos. But when you're writing history, getting the dates and the facts wrong are more than mere typos. I also agree that if this wasn't O'Reilly there wouldn't have been such a feeding frenzy over the errors. But there again, I doubt the book would have made it to second place on the New York Times bestseller list either. It's O'Reilly's celebrity that made it popular in the first place. And this was a double-edged sword that also worked against him.

[Richard]

Nov 15, 2011 14:26:01 GMT -5 Lily said:

I agree that there are very few books that don't have at least a couple of typos. But when you're writing history, getting the dates and the facts wrong are more than mere typos. I also agree that if this wasn't O'Reilly there wouldn't have been such a feeding frenzy over the errors. But there again, I doubt the book would have made it to second place on the New York Times bestseller list either. It's O'Reilly's celebrity that made it popular in the first place. And this was a double-edged sword that also worked against him.

If I only had that much attention, negative or otherwise, surrounding my book.

[jd]

You have to be a celbrity these days to hit the best seller list.