After last nights Letterman Show the Blogs lit up since Letterman essentially called O’Reilly a liar and a phony. The real humor, though, comes from the blogs who cite a 2001 article by O’Reilly when he says:
The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.
That’s because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down.
A big part of doing well on the Letterman show is the audience. A guest not only has to win over the host, but also the people who are sitting a few yards away. It is not a tough crowd, most are happy to be seeing Dave in person, but they are listening. And you better have something to say.
Irony abounds.
Nick — if you look beyond your endocrine system, you might perceive that just about every reasoned participant in the world of journalism considers O’Reilly to be on a par with the worst of American media crappola. That’s a significant achievement; but, it doesn’t give credit exclusively to the Left for discovering that fact.
That may hurt your feelings; but, if you govern your political life with slander and superstition, that’s what you’re left with. The real world is not divided into Right-Wing True Believers — and everyone else. No matter what you call the rest of the world, that is.
The difference between Letterman and O’Reilly is that O’Reilly’s view is ethnocentric– he only sees himself and America as important– whereas Letterman has a wider scope: worldcentric– Earth is one country and all its people citizens of God. O’Reilly complains about terrorists. But he can’t see the other side. America is the world’s biggest terrorists. We FORCE our ideas on everybody else by threat, Congress-sanctioned murder (war) and economic power. That is what terrorists do except that we have unlimited resources, super power and stealthy weapons (mind control being the silent and most dangerous one). You see, people like the Bush family, are protecting those in power, namely the rich. Doesn’t matter what one says, words don’t mean shit these days, but rather, look at one’s ACTIONS. Actions tell the truth. And that truth is that our lives are disposable. Look at the back of a U.S. One Dollar bill. See the pyramid? The top portion of that pyramid is SEPERATED from the lower one and has the ALL-SEEING eye. The Egyptian pharoahs knew that the only way to build great monuments TO THEMSELVES were to ENSLAVE the masses. The pyramids offered NOTHING to the community. TODAY, those in power are still building pyramids. FINANCIAL ONES.
Now America has run into a weapon they cannot supercede. A man who WANTS to die is the most potent weapon in the universe. Goliath has met its David.
“The difference between Letterman and O’Reilly is that O’Reilly’s view is ethnocentric– he only sees himself and America as important– whereas Letterman has a wider scope: worldcentric”
Your kidding right? Letterman is not an elder statesman, a diplomat or even someone who know whats going on. He is nothing more then a entertainer, that’s it. A big problem today is how much stock many americans put in these idiots, just because they are “big stars” They know nothing. At least O’Reilly is a news man, not so much today (commentator is more of his job description now), but has been in the past.
>we are in the fringe area for CBS
I think everyone is. They could probably boost their ratings 10% just by upgrading their equipment.
O’Reilly a news man? Come on! A true news man attempts to get his or her facts straight. O’Reilly is a lier pure and simple.
“…every reasoned participant in the world of journalism considers O’Reilly to be on a par with the worst of American media crappola.”
Comment by Eideard — 1/6/2006
What participants in the world of journalism are you referring to, The Times of NY&LA, The Wall Street Journal, moveon (dot)org, NPR, etc…
The first thing you have to do is admit that 80% our media is pushing a Left agenda with no room for debate.
Bill O’Reilly is “the last bastion of faith-based journalism”…WHAT??? WHERE on his program does it state that it is a ‘faith-based’ show? Hmmm? NOWHERE.
He pawns himself off as a legitimate journalist, but is not even close to it. Since when is it productive to ask someone (who you have brought onto your show specifically to interview) a question and then REFUSE TO LET THEM ANSWER?!?! He’s a jackass, and he’s not even an entertaining jackass (like Bob Novak…he gets himself all confused and contradicts himself…it’s entertaining to watch, in small doses).
All of you right-wing Christian conservatives can have your stupid propaganda shows…just label them in such a way that people have a reasonable expectation as to the content. Don’t claim to be secular and then spout your holier-than-thou (though not very Christian) rhetoric. It’s disingenuous, and it’s wrong.
Bah, the REAL problem is that none of the so-called ‘pinko-liberal intellectuals’ froth at the mouth spouting mean-spirited, dishonest vitriol with the aplomb of most of the right-wingers. We all try to have a reasonable discussion, or even a debate, and the O’Reilly’s and Novaks and Milo’s of the world just start yelling, thumping the table, waving their hands and calling people names. That’s what kids do when they know that they are wrong…
40! “80% our media is pushing a Left agenda” Tee-Hee. Just saying that in public makes it clear where your head is at, dude. Too funny. Thank you.
“Good looking?” Where is this?
I guess I should make it perfectly clear that I was being sarcastic.
Well for once I agree a lot with paul t. Folks, it is all just entertainment.
A journalist gathers and reports the news. That is it. Black and white. A journalist doesn’t add personal views or editorialize about what he is reporting.
An entertainer is more interested in the number of viewers. What they present may resemble fact but is just fiction. And just because that fiction resembles the truth does not make it so.
The biggest difference between Jon Stewart and Bill O’Rielly is Stewart makes no bones that his show is entertainment and fictitious.
Where I disagree with paul is I think the MSM is much more conservative then given credit for.
Milo,
I’m glad you cleared that up.
So what you’re saying is… right wing = fugly?
Man and I thought *I* could be controversial in my opinions 😉
> you might perceive that just about every reasoned
> participant in the world of journalism considers
Who exactly would that be: the major media outlets? I have personally experienced a handful of events that were later reported in a newspaper. Not ONE of those accounts even remotely resembled the events in question. People are so used to yellow journalism that they don’t know what the real thing looks like anymore.
> Letterman has a wider scope: worldcentric– Earth is one
> country and all its people citizens of God.
ROFL. Are you kidding? Wow and me without my hip boots. Could the bullshit get any higher? Letterman is an *entertainer*. His “scope” is his show and nothing else.
> Come on! A true news man attempts to get his or her facts
> straight.
Oooohhh…like Dan Rather? ;-> Bullshit. If that is your definition of news, there aren’t many newspeople in the world.
>o’reilly is an entertainer too. with
True, but at least he *was* a professional journalist at some point. That’s more than can be said of Letterman.
I wouldn’t try to defend O’Reilly too much. He’s far from a saint. But in *this* interview with Letterman he came off far more intelligent and actually concerned than did Letterman. He made Letterman look like a typical elite liberal that knows they don’t agree with something but has no answer as to why. In other words, no *answers*, only retorts.
C’mon guys, people like o ‘reilly need controversy to boost ratings. his stint with letterman was a calculated move to create a buzz, and it looks like it worked, from the look of the comments i’ve read so far. so called “commentators” continually throw shit in the fan so the spotlight can continually be trained on them, giving them reason to rant and rave. sometimes letterman can be a mean bastard but i thoroughly enjoyed his comment on o reilly’s comments as crap, hehe. how’s that for a catchphrase. i wish dave threw in something from o’reilly’s sex scandal just for good measure.
Letterman for President. We need some intelligence instead
of W the dumdbo and his washington stink tanks coming up with crap right wing talking points to make americans feel yeah we gonna kick some but in Iraq.
Letternman Kicked Oreily’s butt and the entire right wing weasels with them that includes the White house and all it weasely members.
And to those who might want to attack me personally for my views I suggest you go watch oreily lie and eat some ice cream to make yourself feel better.
Alright. For those who have viewed The Late Show before it should come as no surprise that it’s not a debate forum. Letterman is unfit to argue with the wit of O’reilly and thus the latter obviously “won the debate”, intellectually. Since I’m not an american I won’t even address the Sheehan issue, but it seems like a battle of opinions more than that of facts. Even though I think O’reilly proved to have a sharper intellect, I disagree with the view that this was a case of facts versus gut feelings. O’reilly is a rational communicator with a logical turn of mind, but intellect must not always win over common sense and intuition. Psychopaths are often very intelligent, but that doesn’t mean that their actions and motives are benign and healthy. Besides, this little argument was all about opinions. Facts? I didn’t hear any.
Can anyone inform me about how O’reilly has commented the Sheehan deal prior to this show? I’m uninformed…
Letterman made a fool out of himself. I would imagine the most important part of succeeding in a debate is to at a bare minimum have some degree of fact or knowledge foundation. Letterman comes across as a talking head for celebrity “group think” – anti-Bush just to be en vogue. Sad, actually. Debate is to be expected, especially with a far from perfect war performance. But at least debate based on fact or counter-solution – don’t just spew out what all of your colleagues do just because it’s popular to do so. Anyone who reads the transcript of that interview and comes away thinking Letterman is anything but an idiot obviously is approaching the subject with a biased point-of-view to begin with.