From Politico:
Bill O’Reilly strongly defended his best-selling “Killing Lincoln” book on Monday after the Ford’s Theatre bookstore refused to sell it because of alleged historical inaccuracies.
The Fox News host told POLITICO that the attack on his book about President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination is “a concerted effort by people who don’t like me to diminish the book.”
The alleged mistakes by O’Reilly and co-author Martin Dugard start in the prologue and are found in other places in the book, according to Emerson’s analysis published in The Washington Poston Saturday. O’Reilly claims Ford’s Theatre burned to the ground in 1863, but it actually happened on Dec. 30, 1862. He writes several times over that Lincoln held meetings or sat in the Oval Office — a nice image. It turns out, however, that the West Wing’s Oval Office wasn’t built until 1909, during President William Howard Taft’s administration, Emerson wrote.
Should it matter if the book contains inaccuracies? None of us were there. How about the book that claims the Grand Canyon was part of the great flood and is only 6,000 years old? That book got to sit right in the Grand Canyon book stores. I saw it with my own eyes, several times. I think a book like that is far more damaging than O’Reilly’s book that might have an inaccuracy or so.
I bought the O’Reilly book as an audible. I haven’t listened to it yet. I was curious about what he had to say. O’Reilly’s historical street cred is fairly good, while not adorned with academic honors, he has taught the subject. If it were too academic, the average Joe, including me, probably wouldn’t want to read it.
Who has read it and who will read it or do we just trash it on the say-so of Ford’s Theater?
Other than that, how was the play?
Couldn’t resist one of my husband’s favorite lines. He wants the book for Christmas. It’s no different from anyone else’s book about an historic person. Read it, in context of the other information you’ve read, listen to what the historians say and decide for yourself. We just finished a book that claims Mr. Lincoln was born illegitimate in NC.
Savannah didn’t like Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil either, but now every tourist place stocks it because people ask for it. Ford’s Theatre shouldn’t snub it. Sometimes reading the book with inaccuracies leads you to explore and read other books that are more accurate.
I suppose the inaccuracies matter because of where the book is being sold. Ford’s Theater probably demands more accurate biographies than Amazon or Barnes & Noble.
Was the book about the Grand Canyon being 6000 years old in the fiction section of the book store? 😉
The Grand Canyon book was sold as science. It was a real chest gripper. It enraged me.
I suppose I don’t care much for this stuff being subject to politics.
The GC book was forced in there. I mean why would someone put a religious book in a science section of a book store?
O’Reilly isn’t my favorite person in the world but I want to hear what he has to say. If he were a highly lettered academician I probably wouldn’t want to read it.
One…if O’Reilly’s book is being sold as historical, it should be fixed.
Moon, did you bring the Canyon book to the attention of the store? What did they say?
@Cargo, no, I knew it was there. I had read that someone in the Bush admin. saw to it that it was there.
Cargo, is every historical book required to be fixed? What if it is one of those interpretation thingies?
The mistakes with the dates….as you mentioned, should be fixed. Why shouldn’t they be fixed? If I was an author writing a historical book and got facts wrong, I would want them fixed. Interpretation is different. Entire books are written because of that and are valuable in their own right.
Well….except for those whose interpretation is different than mine. Then they’re just wrong. 😉
I rarely agree with anything Cargo says, but he is right on this. How would you feel Moon if a math book was full of mistakes? Or say a book on the English language? Mistakes in dates and easily verifiable facts are not a case of “intepretation thingies” As to the book on the Grand Canyon–did you actually SEE the book or read the book? Or did you just hear a rumor about the book being “forced in there” by the Bush administration? Your accusation sounds pretty loosey goosey or maybe it’s just a matter of interpretation.
I heard it was there and when I went there, I found it and looked through it. I do not remember the name. It has been awhile. Perhaps my eyes were just loosey goosey. I don’t think non-science books go underscience. Perhaps religion and inspiration might be a good home for books on the faith that the GC might inspire in man…but…this book was about the GC really being only 6 thousand years old. That has no place there.
Last I heard about O’Reilly’s book, it had 2 small errors and 2 types. I don’t think that is enough to get it banned. If it were full of inaccuracies, then I would agree.
I think all too often these kinds of pronouncements get decided by whether someone is liked or not. If that were the case, I would be hollering to get rid of O’Reilly’s book.
“The Grand Canyon, A Different View”, by Thomas Vail . . . paragon of beauty and testimony to the mighty power of God. Based on research done during Christ-centered rafting trips, Vail and other experts passionately reaffirm creationism with their insightful commentary on the flora, fauna, fossils, and formation of this wonder of the world. Scripture passages and breathtaking photos included throughout enhance the argument.
This might be the book Moon was speaking of but not having been to grand canyon since it was just a small indentation in the ground I cannot be certain.
@Moon-howler
I would agree that non-science books don’t belong under science. W hen I worked at the Uniformed Services University, I met an Air Force colonel who was a physician. We were discussing religion and he advised me that he believe the earth was only 6,000 (?) years old and I could not believe him. I challenged him on this and his response was that he accepted the Bible as holy writ and, in doing so, he accepted that the earth was only as old as the Bible made it out to be. I again asked him that how, as a man of science, could he do that. He simply said something to the effect that his faith led him to that conclusion. Those who believe in creationism believe–period. Should creationism be taught in public schools? Not if you believe in separation of church and state. If your kids go to a church sponsored school, then you should expect that creationism will be promoted while evolution will be downplayed.
As for Bill O’Reilly–wouldn’t buy his book if it only cost a dime. IMHO, he is one of those people th a tar e living proof a-holes can exist with no other visible means of life support.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/8877817-418/oreillys-book-not-welcome-at-major-lincoln-sites.html
Here is another side of the story.
Every once in a while I agree with Bill O’Reilly. He is rough on judges that allow sex offenders out of jail, for example. I would say maybe 20% of the time I of the time I am usually a polar opposite. Since his book was on Lincoln, I sort of thought how badly can he screw up Lincoln (after all, I was raised my MY mother who got thrashed as a kid by her grandfather for uttering the name Abraham Lincoln).
As for the grand canyon theory, I really don’t care if someone believes it is 6000 years old as a matter of faith. I just will not discuss it with them. I believe it is millions of years old.
I will say this. The first time I ever saw it, I will never forget that first minute. The awe and wonder of the place will stay with me in my mind’s eye forever. I would never argue that it wasn’t devinely inspired.
However, the 6000 isn’t science. I think we are agreeing.