In his preface, Kitman writes, "O'Reilly is not his own worst critic. I can be," and claims that his book will "infuriate" O'Reilly fans. But it's hard to ascertain exactly what in the book might enrage O'Reilly backers. Is it the countless Reader's Digest-ready accounts of O'Reilly as a loveable young scamp causing good-natured mischief everywhere he goes? Is it the part where Kitman unironically praises O'Reilly for carrying on the muckraking tradition of Edward R. Murrow? Is it Kitman's glib dismissal of the employee who filed sexual-harassment charges against O'Reilly as a sketchy, dishonest, and desperate opportunist who overreacted to what Kitman sensitively describes as "kidding around"? Or does Kitman really expect O'Reilly's defenders to be apoplectic with rage over the depiction of O'Reilly as a smart, gutsy overachiever who rose from humble origins to the top of the media food chain through talent, hard work, and resilience?
Kitman's aspirations to balance lead to a dispiriting unwillingness to criticize O'Reilly in anything but the meekest, most equivocal terms. Forget pulling punches: Kitman never even gets into the ring. It's telling that Roger Ailes, O'Reilly's boss, says far more critical things about O'Reilly than the author himself. This bland, dryly unfunny, revelation-free hagiography manages to make its subject seem boring, an adjective not even O'Reilly's harshest critics would ever use to describe him.
