Actual Facts? Please

Bill O'Reilly's new book on the Lincoln Assassination has too many errors for the National Park Service to sell it in the museum at Ford's Theater. (You can buy it in the gift shop, of course; NPS gift shops aren't all that rigorous, as the creationist books at the Grand Canyon prove.) But this cracks me up:

For all his criticisms, [historian Edward Steers Jr] praises the narrative as a “pleasant read.” He seems more disappointed than indignant over its failings. “Had the authors done their homework and made use of the available sources of primary documents, they would have written a book much closer to actual facts. They missed a golden opportunity.”

What makes him think O'Reilly is interested in "actual facts"?