You know I live about 25 miles from that school in Dodgeville, Wi which changed the words to Silent Night. That didn’t even make the news here until it hit the national news, and I never heard the whole story until I heard O’Reilly complaining about it now. If it’s not his school, why should he even care? I know the principal there afterwards said it took the fun out of the night when tv cameras out-numbered the participants.
Even worse, the agency is correctly known as MI5.
Even as someone who likes Letterman and dislikes O’Reilly, I wouldn’t quite call it a smackdown. Seems like the interview was more an instance of Dave simply not letting O’Reilly get away with shoveling his usual crap.
That’s a different agency. MI5 is the “Security Service,” and MI6 is the “Secret Intelligence Service.”
For clarity, MI5 is approximately equivalent to the FBI, as MI6 is approximately equivalent to the CIA.
See, I would have just stayed there and let O’Reilly assault me, because not only would that help destroy O’Reilly’s image (and, man, I wish that chick had sold Olbermann the tapes), but I would have had my pick of high powered lawyers for the lawsuits that would follow. 
Thanks, BB, for tracking that down for me. Very interesting.
I enjoy political humor, in the right context. The Daily Show does it exceptionally well, as does Al Franken. Nor do I have a problem with “political propaganda” shows such as “The O’Reilly Factor,” “Scarborough Country” or “Nancy Grace” because at least I know what they are and can tune them out.
I simply dislike when comedians such as David Letterman or Rosie O’Donnell use their shows, which are supposed to be light and entertaining, as a springboard to advance their politics. I tune in, not as a conservative or liberal, but as a fan of Letterman’s dry, smart comedy. And Monday night was not his finest hour. Worse yet, it gave O’Reilly tons of free publicity that he wouldn’t have otherwise gotten.
Hang on a sec. How does having O’Reilly, whose politics are well known, as a guest, advance Dave’s supposed politics?
First, no matter what you think about him, Dave is clearly not a raving liberal. He’s no Al Franken. As I mentioned, I believe he’s middle-of-the road to slightly conservative. Furthermore, critiquing (or dismissing) someone else’s opinions isn’t necessarily an expression of one’s own politics.
Second, Dave is not a world-class debater, and whether his dumb-guy act is put on or not, he’s also no world-class intellectual. So I personally don’t think that O’Reilly was invited on so that Dave could tear him to shreds in a debate. He couldn’t have been sure that O’Reilly (likewise no great intellect, and only a good debater when he controls the other guy’s mike) wouldn’t have come off looking better.
Third, O’Reilly admits he came on specifically to advance his own political ideas. Is Dave just supposed to let him spew whatever he wants without questioning it, even when it’s demonstrably false or distorted?
As for it being good publicity for O’Reilly, I don’t think it worked out that way. Having your ideas ridiculed, even by someone like Letterman, is far less desirable that having them disputed by people on the other side of the spectrum. Arguing with someone grants their views a certain standing. Saying they’re full of crap is more damaging.
Since this is really more a thread of political rants and criticism than entertainment discussion, I’m moving this over to The Pit.
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton:
The young man would be Jeremy Glick; O’Reilly bullied Glick on his show (ending by yelling “Shut up! Shut up!”). Later, on Terry Gross’ NPR show “Fresh Air”, O’Reilly lied about the incident, claiming that Glick had said things he didn’t say. (Then O’Reilly walked out of his “Fresh Air” interview because he’s a pissy little cunt.)
I think that’s an unfair characterization. O’Reilly is a huge cunt.
Although ORielly was a major prick to Jeremy, Mr Glick had prepared and studied ORielly’s style and managed to make his point and not be intimidated. Good for him.
I’m glad to see Dave or anybody call ORielly on his BS. Thank you sir can we have another.
Hey, a horse’s ass like O’Reilly does it all the time – it just comes naturally.
…what rubbish! I’ve seen O’Reilly appear on other talkshows like The View" and he kept things away from politics. When he appeared on Letterman, he went straight on the attack. Do you deny this? Should Letterman have allowed O’Reilly to continue spewing talking points on his show?
…this wasn’t “political humour”, no matter how you want to paint it. O’Reilly came on the show to push his agenda, and Letterman decided not to allow it. You can’t compare this to “The Daily Show”, or what Al Franken does. Letterman had a guest that started talking crap. What would you have done in the situation?
I’m a huge Letterman fan and don’t care much for O’Reilly, but my respect for Letterman dropped a notch in this episode.
Letterman stated (which I, like a couple other posters thought was rude and made me feel uncomfortable) that he thought O’Reilly was “Letterman: “I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.” But then admitted that he doesn’t watch the show: "“Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.” I thought that made him like like a jerk, just spewing someone else’s opinion.
I’m a bit surprised that the people on this debate board seem so satisfied with such an intellectually lazy attitude.
Also, I thought O’Reilly made Letterman look foolish when he said: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.” I was wishing that Letterman had taken that opportunity to be a little more concilliatory and smooth things over.
The “Do you have children?” inquiry annoyed me to know end. As if not having a child precludes someone from having a compasionate and fair opinion on the subject.
However, I did like how Dave masterfully handwaved the war on Christmas issue up front.
Overall, I’d say a small loss for Dave. And more ammo for O’Reilly.
Basically, just about every guest on a talk show is there to hype their new movie, TV show, book, etc. It’s good to see that David Letterman made O’Reilly realize you can only push that free advertising just so far.
FYI, here’s a link to a story by The Associated Press that CNN posted today on its Web site:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/09/tv.oreillys.fights.ap/index.html
And that was either poor or manipulative phrasing by O’Reilly. Given his years on the air, I would favor the latter.
It should have been “I respect your **right to an ** opinion etc.” By phrasing it the way he did, it was backing Letterman into a corner, trying to get him to say that he respected O’Reilly’s opinion. Far from being conciliatory over this manipulation, I don’t blame Letterman for getting irritated.
Yah - My first thought on seeing that was that it was the perfect setup for one of the more devastating SDMB reposts: “No, I respect your right to an opinion, but I don’t have to respect your opinion - especially an opinion that’s so blatantly (yadda yadda)”