Perhaps fans of Mr. O’Reilly are fans of his style of discourse, and so they would prefer to read a book written in that style over a book written in a stereotypical dry academic style, even if (especially because) Mr. O’Reilly does not footnote quite as scrupulously as some others?
This explanation seems quite likely to account for some of the positive ratings from O’Reilly fans, but does it really do anything to account for the vehemence of reactions to negative ratings?
Perhaps fans of Mr. O’Reilly are fans of his style of discourse, and so they would prefer to read a book written in that style over a book written in a stereotypical dry academic style, even if (especially because) Mr. O’Reilly does not footnote quite as scrupulously as some others?
History is not about history.
This explanation seems quite likely to account for some of the positive ratings from O’Reilly fans, but does it really do anything to account for the vehemence of reactions to negative ratings?