Posted on 10/16/2015 7:00:24 AM PDT by iowamark
“Killing Reagan,” by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, is supposed to be a book of new scholarship on the Reagan presidency. Instead, it restates old claims and rumors, virtually all of which have been discredited by the historical record.
In this best-selling book, there are no endnotes, no bibliography, no long list of interviewees and only a smattering of footnotes. There is a section titled “Sources,” but it is only two-and-a-half pages long. It includes about two dozen sources, but that is not adequate for a subject, Ronald Reagan, who has been the focus of thousands of books and articles and who was one of the most consequential political figures of the 20th century. The works of three of us are not noted at all, and between the four of us, we have written 19 books on Reagan, not to mention countless articles. The sources section does, however, reference long-questionable works, including the sensational 1991 attack by Kitty Kelley — which is clearly incorporated throughout the book — and the 1999 biography by Edmund Morris, roundly criticized for its intermingling of fact and fiction.
...archives make clear that Reagan was a far more hands-on, engaged and all-around deeply involved president than many of the partisan accounts alleged in their unfair caricatures of him in the 1980s. Frankly, we had thought that demeaning, flawed caricature — Reagan as the doodling old fool who spent too much time sleeping at Cabinet meetings and watching old movies — had been permanently put to rest by recent scholarship. Unfortunately, “Killing Reagan” shows that the old misinformation (if not disinformation) still remains with us, like a demon that cannot be exorcised. It regurgitates and resurrects much material that we had thought (and hoped) was dead and done.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The Kitty Kelly book was discredited on practically its first day of publication!
BOR has been a hack for quite some time now, but THIS is really jumping the shark.
Ronald Reagan, unlike Jesus or Lincoln, lived during our lifetimes, and we haven’t all died or gotten so senile that we don’t remember the truth!
The place to start is his autobiography “An American Life”.
The man was quite capable of telling his own story.
I read BOR’s Killing Lincoln, and discovered it was just a rehash of history ... nothing new. Haven’t read any that followed ... assume they are the same.
Picture in post 1 nails it.
The O’Baxter Factor indeed.
Glad to see this is in the compost. O’Baxter won’t be able to ignore it.
Ooof. BOR is almost as thin-skinned as Obama & certainly has a large portion of arrogance to go with it. He’s not going to like this article! :-)
Thanks for the post. I was considering getting the kindle version. Won’t bother now...
I don't know why anybody would buy any of BOR's books. He's always struck me as a guy who only reads the jacket flap of a book. He is woefully uninformed about most of what he bloviates about. He has strong opinions and preconceived notions, but little knowledge.
Verity asked him, "What's your secret." Reagan told him, "bee pollen. I take a bee pollen capsule every day."
The idea of the oily, pompous O’Reilly pontificating about Ronald Reagan, the last American president, is truly grating.
Ditto that. My daughter gave me that book for Christmas, I read it and didn't find a single thing that was not already common knowledge for any American History buff. Reading it was a waste of time.
O'Reilly is a blowhard missing some essential factors.
His effort on "Killing Jesus" really paled in comparison to "The Passion of the Christ."
His works are the like the USA Today of books.
I bought the book on my audible account and returned it 3/4 the way through. it read like a liberals wet dream of a fantasy about what was going on the white house. my biggest problem with the book was that it insinuated that Reagan started to suffer from alzheimer’s shortly after he was elected to office the first time. I caught the book contradicting itself on a fact that it mentioned early on in the book I decided to return it not finishing the book. unfortunately I cant remember the contradiction. I do feel the book was a hatchet job meant to tarnish conservatism.
I found the same with “Killing Kennedy” boring and nothing new. My husband just finished “Killing Reagan” and thought it was a hit piece.
The amazing thing is that so many low-information readers (not necessarily a contradiction in terms) snap up this crap, and make O’Reilly even richer. As others have observed, his “Killing” books are nothing more than a rehash of information long-available from other sources, with a good measure of O’Reilly’s speculation and interpretation thrown in for good measure. I’m guessing his actual contributions to each book are minimal; Dugard does all the heavy lifting, with BOR making a few changes here and there, then slapping his name on the cover.
Given the scores of books available on Ronald Reagan, I knew O’Reilly would look for a new angle to sell his version of events. And sure enough, he recycles the myth that Ronaldus Magnus was suffering from Alzheimer’s early in his presidency and aides were on the verge of forcing him to resign if he “failed” their knowledge quiz. Pure, unadulterated B.S.
I will give O’Reilly some credit for capitalizing on his fame and selling a ton of books. You’d hope that anyone interested in the life of Reagan, George Patton or any other historical figure featured in these books would read something a little more accurate (and better-sourced) to learn more about the subject. Regrettably, many readers will accept BOR’s version as the gospel truth, so distortions and lies about historical events will get even greater play, as the Fox News anchor gets another big payday.
Personally, I’ve always believed that O’Reilly’s book series is designed to cover the financial hole left by his divorce. BOR went through a protracted legal battle with his ex-wife (who was cheating on the Fox anchor), and he’s probably paying big bucks in the settlement and alimony. Most of these books—and related TV projects—have appeared since the divorce, helping O’Reilly rebuild his bank account.
Didn’t a Lincoln museum refuse to carry Killing Lincoln because of all the mistakes in it? It’s obvious that O’Reilly is employing hacks to research & write these books for him. (I doubt that he’s doing it.) Truly disgusting story!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.