Killing Lincoln by Bill O'Reilly

[Gene C]

Excellent book review by Kate Clifford Larson in the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860...w=fulltext

[LincolnToddFan]

Hmmm...she doesn't seem much impressed by Bill O's opus. But Betty and Laurie both got a nice little shout out!

[STS Lincolnite]

I think this was a very accurate review of O'Reilly's book. Thanks for posting Gene.

[Gene C]

Bill O'Reilly is now no longer with Fox News.

http://start.att.net/news/read/article/t...ill_ore-ap

[Dave Taylor]

(04-20-2017 07:40 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Bill O'Reilly is now no longer with Fox News.

Thank goodness. I know we don't want to get too political here but I have always felt that Mr. O'Reilly and his former network are major contributors to the degradation of facts and reason especially when it comes to history.

[Gencor]

(04-20-2017 08:20 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 07:40 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Bill O'Reilly is now no longer with Fox News.

Thank goodness. I know we don't want to get too political here but I have always felt that Mr. O'Reilly and his former network are major contributors to the degradation of facts and reason especially when it comes to history.

Amen to that. You don't have to get political to just know what is right and what is not.

---

(02-10-2015 06:29 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  I think this was a very accurate review of O'Reilly's book. Thanks for posting Gene.

I never understand, with all of the really great books that have been written about Lincoln and the assassination, why someone would take such a tacky shot like this. I agree that the review was accurate. I just don't understand what Bill O'Reilly thought he would accomplish by putting out something so inadequate to what has come before? It just doesn't make any sense. It certainly doesn't put him in the same league with other real authorities on the history of this subject.

What I expect, when there are newer books written about such subjects, are to see new information coming to light. That is what I want to read. If it is just the same stuff that has already been written, why bother? I don't feel that O"Reilly's book offers anything new at all. I felt that in some cases, he even confuses the truth.

I am undertaking such a journey myself and it has taken me several years and I am not done yet. I wouldn't attempt something that has been done this much, without something new coming to light, to add to the history. Why else would anyone do this?

[LincolnMan]

Money? Ego?

[davg2000]

Although Killing Lincoln has been seen by at least one reviewer as a "missed opportunity," I do think that O'Reilly was pitching his book to another kind of reader, one with a smattering of information on the Assassination, who would be impressed by the book's "No Spin" tone. It's impossible for me to separate the book from the persona that O'Reilly cultivated on Fox News. The relentless tone of the book, coupled with its misinformation, kill the book for me. So far as the author's motives for writing it go, I think money and ego, as well.

[Gencor]

I agree with both of you that money and ego could be part of it but I honestly think that Bill O'Reilly thinks of himself as some kind of authority on history and getting these crazy books published is his own confirmation of it. I realize that he has the name but I still don't get why a publishing company would get behind something as inadequate as this. I realize it is because O'Reilly has a big name and following and the profits from sales are high but this only feeds the ignorance of people who are being fooled into believing that they are learning something and they don't know it isn't all the truth.

I worry more and more about what is happening to our history. It seems that people can get anything published these days and when it comes to accurate history, publishers have really lowered their standards and in turn, the public is cheated.

[Tom Bogar]

Alexandra Petri wrote a delightful satire in last week's Washington Post that seems tailor-written for readers of this thread: ‘Killing Bill’ (in the style of noted historian Bill O’Reilly) :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com...9268d5344e

[JJamiekinder]

I agree totally with the earlier opinions concerning O'Reilly's Killing Lincoln. I actually do a two-day lesson with my American History class of juniors using the piece as an example of improper citations and references or as I term it...bad history. I use the second part of his book, "The Ides of Death" which as earlier stated, uses a vague narrative of cited sources such as Wink's April 1865, Anthony Pitch's They Have Killed Papa Dead and Kaufman's American Brutus. As you all know, these are great sources but the way the authors use them, the reader simply cannot decipher how they are referenced as there is no specific pages or direct quotations in the notes. I then put the students in groups actually going through referenced sources (Wink, Pitch and Kaufman) to see if they can figure out how they were used. The students then compare a well-written and cited piece of history, in this case I use Roy Z. Chamlee's Lincoln's Assassins (one of my favorites) to compare and contrast "good history" verse "bad". Nonetheless, my students come away with the same verdict that most of you do. That O'Reilly produced a stinker. Then I show them the NY Times best seller list, which he sat atop of for weeks and we then take the conversation of "sources", "what sells" and "why" even further to today's "fake news" and the importance of properly vetted information. And just for the record, I don't even go down the path of opinion concerning the premise of the piece. But if i did, I would put it along side of Eisenschiml, the original scoundrel of the bunch, Vaughn Shelton, who followed in the chemist shoes, Ray Neff's Civil War Times debacle and of course Balsiger and Sellier's book which unfortunately was turned into a bad motion picture. Politics aside, there is a reason the bookstore at Ford's refuses to carry O'Reilly's piece. It's simply bad history.

[L Verge]

What a great lesson plan, Jamie! Too bad we can't clone you and send this style of teaching into classrooms across the nation. Members of my staff and I work with National History Day students, and one of the most difficult lessons to teach both the students and their teachers is how to use primary sources and citations. Years ago, I actually participated in a museum workshop where we conducted classes on this for just teachers (most of whom were very weak in that area).

Way back when Killing Lincoln first came out, I tried to find out more about O'Reilly's "co-author" because I suspected that he might be the real historian. Not so. Martin Dugard left the corporate world of marketing to pursue journalism - mainly writing articles for sports magazines. I'm not sure how he and O'Reilly hooked up, but I still suspect that Dugard did the bulk of the writing.

My respect for National Geographic dropped when they produced the film. I understand that they still have plans for doing his Killing Patton script, and Macmillan's Henry Holt and Co. division still has him under contract for more of his "Killing" series (who's left?). Here are some statistics that I found that will make you groan: Henry Holt and Company says that that series has sold 9.5 million copies to date. National Geographic says that 3.4 million viewers watched the Lincoln movie - surpassed only by the Killing Kennedy one.

Of course, Nat Geo is owned by Fox, so it will be interesting to see whether the fall-out of advertisers due to O'Reilly's alleged indiscretions and his firing will hurt that subsidiary also. I'm betting that sales will increase. I also feel that the lack of good history teachers on a national level, as well as the elimination of history classes in many areas, have led to this acceptance of weak/bad history because the average reader does not know any better.

[JJamiekinder]

Thanks Laurie! Sources seem to be a hot topic right now and my students enjoy discussing the topic. As far as the elimination of history in our educational system unfortunately I feel your correct. My district is actually taking two classes (Global I pre-history to 1500) and Global II 1500 to present) and combining the two into one class lasting one school year. Imagine that, combining the entire history of civilization into one class. And to top it off they are taking the teaching position and moving it into the science department. This is part of the push into taking our educational emphasis towards math and science. Not a very safe feeling for history teachers I can assure you that!

[Gencor]

(04-25-2017 09:54 AM)L Verge Wrote:  What a great lesson plan, Jamie! Too bad we can't clone you and send this style of teaching into classrooms across the nation. Members of my staff and I work with National History Day students, and one of the most difficult lessons to teach both the students and their teachers is how to use primary sources and citations. Years ago, I actually participated in a museum workshop where we conducted classes on this for just teachers (most of whom were very weak in that area).

Way back when Killing Lincoln first came out, I tried to find out more about O'Reilly's "co-author" because I suspected that he might be the real historian. Not so. Martin Dugard left the corporate world of marketing to pursue journalism - mainly writing articles for sports magazines. I'm not sure how he and O'Reilly hooked up, but I still suspect that Dugard did the bulk of the writing.

My respect for National Geographic dropped when they produced the film. I understand that they still have plans for doing his Killing Patton script, and Macmillan's Henry Holt and Co. division still has him under contract for more of his "Killing" series (who's left?). Here are some statistics that I found that will make you groan: Henry Holt and Company says that that series has sold 9.5 million copies to date. National Geographic says that 3.4 million viewers watched the Lincoln movie - surpassed only by the Killing Kennedy one.

Of course, Nat Geo is owned by Fox, so it will be interesting to see whether the fall-out of advertisers due to O'Reilly's alleged indiscretions and his firing will hurt that subsidiary also. I'm betting that sales will increase. I also feel that the lack of good history teachers on a national level, as well as the elimination of history classes in many areas, have led to this acceptance of weak/bad history because the average reader does not know any better.

The more I read your comments, Laurie, the more I know that you and I think a lot alike. I keep saying that there are not enough good history teachers but more, there doesn't seem to be enough interest in the school curriculum to place more emphasis on American History. I believe that there would be more accuracy if there was more of a demand for it. I shudder to think what people think that they are learning by reading these pieces of published inaccurate materials. A lot of people believe that just because this stuff gets published, that is all true. Most don't even bother to look it up or question it, because they don't know to ask the questions.

---

(04-25-2017 10:16 PM)JJamiekinder Wrote:  Thanks Laurie! Sources seem to be a hot topic right now and my students enjoy discussing the topic. As far as the elimination of history in our educational system unfortunately I feel your correct. My district is actually taking two classes (Global I pre-history to 1500) and Global II 1500 to present) and combining the two into one class lasting one school year. Imagine that, combining the entire history of civilization into one class. And to top it off they are taking the teaching position and moving it into the science department. This is part of the push into taking our educational emphasis towards math and science. Not a very safe feeling for history teachers I can assure you that!

It doesn't give me a safe feeling about education in general. For years, I have felt that they are taking more away from the education curriculum than adding to it, which I feel that they should be doing. When I think of the loaded classes that I took, that were actually required and what they are studying today, I can't believe it.

[HerbS]

I sent Dugard an e-mail awhile back and I asked him what his background was! I too-was very unhappy with his historical research!This entire mess disturbs me!