Killing Lincoln & Kennedy? (1 Viewer)

[Johnny Angell]

Helluva subject for a thread isn't it? I figure most of you understand I want discuss the two Bill O'Reilly histories on the two assassinations.

My question is are these two books bone fide histories that are devoid of O'Relilly's political viewpoints. I am not asking you to discuss politics, just if you can recommend the books as real histories and not political missives.

I don't believe this violates forum guidelines.

 

[Patrick_S]

My friend likes them but there are factual errors that should be corrected especially if you want them to be considered history books. I was rather disappointed in O'Reilly when on Letterman he dismissed the importance of correcting the errors because the were minor errors when Dave pressed him about correcting them. Since so many Americans no so little history O'Reilly has an obligation to be accurate since many will take the errors as fact.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Well that's crappy. All the time I'm reading the book I'll be wondering if that fact...or that fact...or that fact...is true. A few mistakes can diminish the whole book.

 

[schan1269]

There are "factoid correction" blogs about both books.

A few of the errors are timeline related(as in he leads you to think that some decisions were made "today" in the speed of email).

Been awhile since I cared to check the blogs, but as it were, there are only like 2, maybe 3, egregious errors in both books. One reason he hasn't corrected them is because "people would think he's trying to re-sell the books".

 

[Johnny Angell]

Re-sell the books? If he's worried about that, just correct the errors in any future printings and don't make a big deal about it. 2-3 biggies in two books doesn't sound so bad. Maybe I'll give one of them a spin.