Bill O’Reilly Confounds History and Makes Bank (WTF, America?)

While rummaging through Amazon's Best Sellers in books the other day, I happened upon a rather depressing sight:  Bill O'Reilly's Killing Lincoln was ranked sixth:

So why is that depressing?  The straightforward answer is this: Bill O'Reilly is not an accomplished historian!  He's a damned political pundit with a Masters in Public Administration.  An M.P.A. certainly qualifies one to administer, but to write as an authoritative source on matters of national/world history?  Absolutely not.  Would you accept legal advice from a sales associate at Target?  How about heart surgery; does it seem reasonable to let someone other than a heart surgeon perform such an operation?  Of course not.

Reading historical works written by people other than historians is generally very risky business.  Why?  It's a matter of accuracy.  And wouldn't you know it, O'Reilly's book has come under intense fire for . . . historical inadequacies.  Such to the extent that the Ford's Theatre National Historic Site superintendent Rae Emerson reports the book will not be sold in the Ford Theatre's store.  Seriously - If the damned Ford Theatre is unwilling to sell the book, what makes you think it's reliable?

Of course, historians could have it all wrong:  Maybe O'Reilly is correct.  Maybe the thousands upon thousands of articles, journal publications and books written by actual historians have it backward.  After all, I agree with historian Hans-Jurgen Goertz who believes "that each generation exercises its right to re-read the sources that have been read by the preceding generation and to interpret them in a different way than before." (1998, 103). 

Let's be clear about that:  it is okay to re-read what has been written before, and to suggest new ways of understanding our shared histories.  However, "Revisionism is, correctly understood, a step forward in awareness and understanding, not a step back." (Ibid, 105).  But O'Reilly's book is isn't revisionism properly understood.  This is a television personality writing books about history according to how he thinks it ought to be interpreted - never mind citing primary sources, addressing previous research and submitting research for peer review.  You know - making sure your contributing to our understanding and not confounding it.  But, nah - to hell with all that academic shit, IT ARE FACT (he edited the Wikipedia page)!

In reality, O'Reilly's book offers readers nothing - aside from inadequacy.  And yet it remains in the top sellers list on Amazon, and USA Today ranks it #13 on their top 100 list:

So I don't get it; we complain about inaccuracy, about revisionism, and about how our history is being constantly altered. And nonetheless, O'Reilly's book - which accomplishes all of this - does exceedingly well.  Hey America: what's the deal, man? 

Are readers unsure how to judge the credibility of a source?  Are we just not sure who is reliable?  Is it that we're afraid "history books" are boring?  You tell me.  And in the mean time, if you're really interested in learning about an extraordinary president, give historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rival: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln a read:

It's Reliable!

Reference

Goertz, H. (1998). "Response to The 'Revolutionary Nature' of Thomas Muntzer." trans. Alexandra Sterling-Hellenbrand, The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 72: 103-107.  Retrieved December 7, 2011.