Letterman smacks down O'Reilly

The BBQ Pit
61

Again… it’s a comedy show. He didn’t do any damage to O’Reilly’s credibility, and I don’t think he wanted to try. He just didn’t like him and vented.

Mainstream news programs shouldn’t be trashing him, that’s not their job. It’s true that there’s not a whole lot of response to O’Reilly on TV. People who don’t like him would enjoy it regardless.

I’m just saying it was a silly thing to hope for.

He’s not the type to care what facts you throw at him. I don’t think lectures from David Letterman and Jon Stewart are going to ruin Bill O’Reilly, no matter how well-researched they are. He’d only feed off the controversy.

62

I agree. It wasn’t entertainment except for the rabid O’reilly haters. Letterman is a professional comedian. He could have turned it from serious to funny but obviously chose to keep it political and air a personal grudge against one of his invited guests. I don’t really care for O’reilly one way or the other, but to me he came out the better man from that interview because of the lack of grace and tact from the host. I have always liked Letterman, but I have lost quit a bit of respect for the man and his show. At least I know Leno will always try to keep me laughing/entertained. Uncomfortable was exactly how I felt during and after that interview.

63

The song was actually “Baba O’Riley.” Paul seems to prefer puns to commentary in his choice of music. My favorite: Tim Russert, introduced with “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off.” (my best guess: Russert >> Russet potatoes >> potato/potahto)

64

And I thoroughly enjoyed the interview with Al Franken on Letterman a few months back. It was somewhat political, but mostly entertaining and funny. I’m sure allot had to do with Franken being a comedian, but from the start Letterman just deadpanned O’reilly’s attempt at levity with that “Solstice” remark. Franken wasn’t harping on his political rhetoric any less than O’reilly, and Letterman interacted and kept it upbeat.

65

I’d like to point out that it was hardly Letterman that turned this thing political. O’Reilley came on there with a set of memorized “outrageously funny outrages” to flog his “war on Christmas.” His opening was the most patheic and contrieved attempt to wedge something irrelevent in that I’ve ever seen. His only plan was to wedge the words “war on Christmas” in as many times as humanly possible, ideally framed in a few “humorous anecdotes” - regardless of the situation. O’Reilly fully intended to use his appearance in bad faith as a platform- not a humorous discussion. I don’t blame Dave a whit for putting a stop to that. It’s his show and he doesn’t have to stand up to it being treated as a “war on Christmas” infomercial.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the “war on Christmas” wasn’t the most obviously contrieved bullshit in the world. I’ve never seen something so transparent, manipulative, and purposfully devisive. It gives yellow journalism a good name.

66

…I just finished watching it on NZ TV and I was just going to point this out. O’Reilley didn’t come out to have a quiet chat, he came out to push his agenda. Letterman followed one of the cardinal rules of Great Debates, that anecdotal evidence is proof of, well, nothing really, and responded with rightful derision.

When Letterman tried to move the conversation away from the “Christmas” debate, O’Reilly dropped the “Sheenan” bomb. Dave over the years has always struck me as first and foremost, an old-style gentleman, and I feel that O’Reilly’s attack on Sheenan pushed Letterman over the edge. I’ve always been a fan of Letterman, I’ve never seen him get political except when he needed to be.

…you didn’t see O’rielly go on the attack when Letterman innocently mentioned the Holidays? Or the letter that O’reilly conveiniently had in his pocket? O’reilly clearly came on the show to push a political agenda, something that is not normally done on Letterman’s show. There comes a point, even on a light hearted entertainment show, that bullshit needs to be called bullshit. Which is what Letterman did: from reading the thread I was expecting to feel a little bit uncomfortable about the interview but I thought he gave Bill everything he deserved…

67

I’m a way bigger fan of Letterman than O’Reilly, but I have to agree that was indeed a cheap shot. Plus, a counter-productive one, that gives O’Reilly a strong defense for being “smacked down”.

68

I completely disagree with this line. Having a guest on an interview programme is not like inviting someone to your house for a personal interaction. People go on shows like Letterman for their own benefit, for publicity. Plus, they get paid. If you’re a public figure like O’Reilly who has made plenty of money pushing his agenda or Lynn Cheney then you should not be surprised if you go on an interview show and someone challenges you on your own public stances.

Anyway, it was O’Reilly who started it with his stupid “soltice” comment.

That being said, I didn’t think Letterman did any damage to O’Reilly by basically saying “I think you’re crap but I can’t prove it.” But there should be no public forum where people like O’Reilly or any politician or any opinionist feels safe from being challenged on their public statements or persona.

69

Right. If you make your living from controversy, NO public appearance is in a “safe zone”. There is no violation of etiquette.

70

No, they shouldn’t. What they should be doing is saying something is untrue when it is untrue. Like saying “There is no war on Christmas, it’s made up, and the facts are distortions so gross that they can only be called lies.” Instead, they say “Is there a war on Christmas?”

71

O’Reilly showed a good portion of the Letterman interview and talked about it for almost 20 minutes on his show last night. He started by insisting on the reality of the “culture wars” and saying that leftists see the U.S. as the bad guy in Iraq and “traditionalists” see what we’re doing there as “noble.”

He was joined by Jeannie Wolfe and Juan Williams. The latter was O’Reilly’s yes-man, saying that Letterman embarrassed himself and was rude and that O’Reilly was funnier than Letterman. This last point clarified for me that Williams has his own separate reality. O’Reilly didn’t say anything even remotely funny.

Interestingly, Wolfe agreed with Letterman that there’s nothing to the “War on Christmas” and the “culture wars.” O’Reilly couldn’t believe that anyone would disagree with him on that point. She did a pretty good job of holding her own with him, despite his disbelief.

At the end, O’Reilly said that he went on Letterman to try and reach that audience and make them O’Reilly fans, and that he’d go back if asked. “I enjoy the joust.”

I’ve always had the sense that Dave is a little to the right of center, and perhaps was originally an old-style Republican. But he seems to be pretty dismayed by the current administration and the nastiness and blatant B.S. of neo-cons like O’Reilly.

As posters here and elsewhere on SDMB and the Web have shown, the two examples O’Reilly gave of the “War on Christmas” Tuesday night – the “Silent Night” rewording and the Plano red/green clothing ban – are complete bullshit. He either knew that and spread the lies again on purpose or chose not to learn the truth.

Dave didn’t argue with him on the particulars, perhaps because O’Reilly has better polemic skills and might have scored an apparent “victory.” When you get down and wrestle with people like O’Reilly, each side cites its facts and claims the other is stupid or lying, both get covered with mud, and most people will judge the loudest one to be the “winner.”

So Dave chose to ridicule him instead. Neither O’Reilly’s haters nor lovers will be swayed by this, but some in the middle may at least begin to question whether his apparent authority and reputation are justified. Dave’s little poke won’t get O’Reilly cancelled (unlike Jon Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire), but it could help take a little wind out of his sails. Okay by me.

72

Oh, yeah. Dave didn’t say a word about O’Reilly last night on his show.

73

Where Letterman shined is when he simply poo-poohed O’Reilly for making a big deal out of nothing. It’s hard to counter someone who just says “big deal” and doesn’t bother to refute your facts or question your opinion. His comments on Sheehan were too easy a target and the rest of his commentary was completely uninformed. I’ve never seen Letterman so political. It was funny to see O"Reilly so nervous.

74

Actually, he didn’t. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Letterman simply proved himself to be a total idiot.

75

Thanks for the cogent argument :rolleyes:, but I think you’re confused. Dave was the one on the right side of the screen. The idiot, to the left, was O’Reilly.

76

Dude, have you forgotten who O’Reilly works for?

77

Really? I’d like to see that, where Dave hog-ties Bill, pants him, then trusses him up for 50 licks with a birch cane. :smiley:

Then again, knowing Bill’s bizarre fetishes, he might actually enjoy it… :eek:

78

I’m wondering how he did that. Care to widen your opinion out a smidge?

79

I don’t agree that these late night shows are only entertainment. I think they play a signifigant role in the formation of public opinion of people. For instance Bill Clinton will hump anything that moves and George Bush is the dumbest man in America are constant themes on these shows and have become practically givens in pop culture. Letterman’s dressing down of O’Rielly will make it more acceptable to think he’s full of shit. I’m not expecting a big sea change or anything, but it will hurt him a bit.

Furthermore, it’s not like Letterman has never challenged his guests before. When Howard Dean was on a few months ago Letterman hit him with several difficult questions. Dean was affable throughout, however, and he didn’t lead off by dropping trou and taking a war-on-Christmas style shit on the stage.

80

Not for those with critical thinking skills.