O'Reilly beats Letterman at neither man's game
The blurring of the lines that existed between journalism and political activism is so generalized you sometimes forget there once was a difference. Millions of people eased into the habit of getting their news from non news sources and happily opined ever after.
Yesterday's Late Show managed to get the confusion in the public arena one stage further. David Letterman had invited Fox's lion king Bill O'Reilly into his own soft humor den. The exchange can be seen here and here. For a while the famed wordsmiths blew lukewarm air at each other.
Halfway through the exchange Letterman got himself into a corner, conceded he was not smart enough to argue his case but darted out, through a wall of O'Reilly noise, that he thought 60% of the Factor man's usual speechifying was 'crap'. O'Reilly demanded proof. Letterman found no better answer than: I don't watch your show. He was toast ever since.
Surprising how David Letterman let himself be beaten by the street fighter in the guest seat. Why stray from humor if you don't prepare yourself for debate? Why claim your visitor is routinely producing baloney, if you can't come up with one single example?
O'Reilly could not believe his luck. After he had been able to sell his Christmas War spiel, he even got Manhattan's master host to wander into a blind alley: the war. O'Reilly had nothing to offer on Iraq, domestic spying, the Constitution or hastily redonated Abramoff money. Opportunities Letterman did not prepare for either.
Neither gentleman specializes in facts, but at the expense of Cindy Sheehan and thousands of mourning families both saw fit to moonlight in journalism. Show business always liked reality as a pretext for fun. Crossing swords with professional ideologues the laugh factory might better shy away from further blurring of genres.
Letterman apparently made two mistakes - not watching any of O'Reilly and assuming O'Reilly to be as dumb as he talks. I, too, couldn't provide any examples of crap from O'Reilly, having never watched the man, but I also assume he is smart, or he couldn't continually fool so many people. It is hard to imagine why Letterman had him on the show. But, let me guess: O'Reilly is touting a new book, thus is a cheap guest.
January 4, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
O'Reilly's picture is on the front page twice, and he has his own little link on the left. A quick check shows it lists 211 pieces of various kinds of crap.
Like the caveman says, next time, do a little research!
January 4, 2006 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither gentleman specializes in facts, but at the expense of Cindy Sheehan and thousands of mourning families both saw fit to moonlight in journalism.
The difference is that O’Reilly moonlights in propaganda everyday at the expense of people who really suffer from his right-wing apologia. It’s true that Letterman is just a comedian and O’Reilly is just a blowhard, but like you say, this is where many people get their news and views. Still, out of the millions of viewers, I would doubt that one ditto-head, neo-hippy, apathetic gray-suit, or opinionless yokel mind was changed by this ridiculous exchange.
January 4, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest, this type of "blurring the lines" bothers me a whole lot less than the blurring of the lines we get on CNN and MSNBC almost everyday.
Letterman wasn't really moving into journalistic terrority, anymore than you or I sitting at a bar or a diner talking current events with someone else.
At least with Dave, you know he's a comedian.
Rita Cosby's pretty funny, but she ain't no comedian.
January 4, 2006 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Letterman won. It was not a debate. It was a popularity contest. By saying he thinks 60% of what of what O'Reilly says is crap he tore the cover off of O'Reilly's persona. The audience saw it as a breakthrough moment and responded with a roar.
Getting into an exchange of anecdotal evidence with O'Reilly would be fruitless and boring. Letterman pointed out in the Christmas War discussion that O'Reilly's anecdotes don't prove anything. Dodgeville, WI probably doesn't outlaw Christmas carols even if they use a song with different lyrics set to the tune of Silent Night.
Letterman would have lost by being in ambush for O'Reilly with prepared attack questions from Media Matters. Operating that way is out of character for him. Letterman has interviewed O'Reilly before; and O'Reilly gets enough exposure in the general media for Letterman or anyone to form an opinion of whether O'Reilly is full of crap or not. Letterman gave voice to a general disgust many people feel with propaganda that poses as objectivity. If Letterman had provided an example it would not have proven much.
O'Reilly recognized that Letterman won, as evidenced by his uncharcteristically subdued demeanor. See Crooks and Liars for a transcript of O'Reilly discussing the respect he has for Letterman as a detector of phony guests.
January 4, 2006 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, we didn't watch the same clip. He made O'Reilly look like an ass, round after round after.... and as they rounded the last turn, he forced O'Reilly into wonk mode, and used it against him. As comedic ju-jitsu goes, it was a masterstroke.
January 4, 2006 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The exchange was about who did a better job of appealing to emotions, not who had more facts. O'Reilly did what people on the wrong side of ideological issues often do: bring up irrelevant, but emotionally appealing, talking points to obscure the fact that he has no real argument. He starts out by saying "Let's not talk about how we got there." Why? Because it's a guaranteed loser for his side. When Letterman persists, he brings up talking points about Cindy Sheehan, and comparing our soldiers to terrorists and so on -- anything but about the losing issue. It's an old debating trick, but it's still used because it works on an unsophisticated audiences like the one watching that show. You can have all the facts in the world at your disposal, but it won't matter, because in these sorts of "debates," facts are irrelevant. Get out your talking points, say things that people will, or will want to, agree with ("Our soldiers aren't terrorists"; "terrorism is wrong") and it looks like you are giving substantive debate when you are actually ducking the issue.
People often get the feeling, as did Letterman, that something's wrong (that's what Letterman meant when he said "60% of what you're saying is crap"), but it's really difficult to put your finger on what's wrong when you're on the spot like that, and then communicate it in such a way that the audience will understand what's been done.
January 4, 2006 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that Letterman didn't view his exchange with O'Reilly as a contest, and even if he did, he conceded early.
I agree however, that it was important to make the 60% crap comment, if for no other reason than it's true, and, sitting in the guest chair, O'Reilly couldn't shout, "Shut up! Shut up! Cut his mike!"
January 4, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 4, 2006 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
count me as one who wonders if you and I watched the same clip. Letterman's I'm not smart enough looked like a belated attempt at self-deprecation and his "I don't watch your show" was laced with dismissive contempt. I saw this as a clash between a normal, lucid person, bewildered and repelled by the free-floating anger and self-importance of O'Reilly, and a robot that had programmed itself in ideology and arrogance. I think Letterman wiped the floor with him in the opinion of all but the most scales-on-eyes Bushites al-Foxeerists. But I hated O'Reilly and loved Letterman before last night show's started, so...
January 4, 2006 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
BlueInColorado makes the point I would. This was not a debate on facts. Letterman's comment that he did not watch O'Reilly's show was meant to convey disdain. He did not have to, nor did he want to argue with facts his "feeling" that Bill was 60% full of crap.
I think that is perhaps the appropriate way to deal with an intellectually dishonest guy like O'Reilly. It's like the joke with the punchline "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price." In this case, it's "I know what you are, now I'm just trying to exchange the appropriate insults."
January 4, 2006 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's very simple, really: they're both entertainers but it was clear that Letterman does not like O'Reilly's form of entertainment (as he understands it to be) and felt like saying so. Letterman just is not the type to take it to the level of Al Franken's jihad against O'Reilly, because Letterman likes to keep his politics private, and Franken makes his politics part of his shtick and vice versa, which O'Reilly also does.
(However, that said, allow me this speculation: this one very infrequent viewer of O'Reilly--maybe 8 times all the way through--questions how much O'Reilly is true believer and how much infotainer. I have gotten these inklings that he has to really has to work hard to get into "O'Reilly character," ala method acting, and that he has had to do it so often and for so long that he isn't sure where his own self went :-)...don't forget that way before Saturday Night parodied Chris Matthews, they did O'Reilly to much greater effect. That's because he's such a strong character, nearly as fulsome and caricature-able as the now iconic Archie Bunker. Al Franken does not come off that way and never will, that's because it's very clear that there is belief behind the shtick.)
January 4, 2006 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rita Cosby's pretty funny, but she ain't no comedian.
She's no journalist, either!
January 4, 2006 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is only one line that will be remembered from that entired exchange. "60% of what you say is crap"
Because it is true.
January 5, 2006 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Three thoughts. More people saw Letterman say that O'Reilly is "60% full of crap" than propably watch O'Reilly in a month of his show.
O'Reilly is a bully and as long as he was on Letterman's show it is a lot harder to bully the host.
Lastly, it is an odd thing but Ann Coulter regularly beats up on O'Reilly. I think O'Reilly is more like Pat Buchannan, rightwing populists and schemers, rather than died in the wool conservatives.
January 5, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the posters here are right, and the "60% of what you say is crap" will be remembered because Letterman played his hand well.
He started with the Christmas thing. Letterman established his credibility by saying what everyone knows, which is "what the hell do you mean I can't say 'Merry Christmas?' There, I just said it." People know from their own experience that Christmas is alive and well, and that O'Reilly is, to be charitable, making a mountain out of a molehill.
From that point on, Dave didn't have to engage O'Reilly on the specifics. Becuase he could just say, "yeah, I think this is like that Christmas thing and you're just making shit up. And also, you're really mean and I just don't get why."
When I watched it, I initially thought O'Reilly did pretty well for himself. Because I'm used to watching pundits bloviate, and by the "bloviation vs. bloviation tit-for-tat" standard Dave lost.
And then I realized the only thing I remembered from it was that O'Reilly was getting nutty about a coordinated nationwide War on Christmas that I've somehow missed, O'Reilly said a woman whose soldier son was killed by Iraqis loves Iraqis and hates soldiers (which makes NO sense), and Dave doesn't really pay attention to politics but thinks that 60% of what Bill says is crap. Sounds about right to me.
O'Reilly beat himself. What you missed was Dave giving him rope.
January 5, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 5, 2006 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 5, 2006 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the genius of Letterman. He takes the disarming attitude that "we're both idiots who have no idea what we're talking about" leaving unsaid the obvious point that for Letterman being an idiot is part of his entertaining persona while for Limbaugh or O'Reilly it is an embarassing truth. The moment that the O'Reilly and Letterman are even compared, Letterman has already won.
January 5, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
GBHeron gets it exactly. Who's watching Late Show? Mostly people who like Letterman. To them, O'Reilly comes on and goes into a rant (and worse, is not particularly funny; listen to the audience's weak reaction). You can see Letterman sitting there getting more and more irritated because O'Reilly's not being entertaining, which is the worst sin in Letterman's book. (Limbaugh made the same mistake, which was he finally got taken down.) When Letterman finally lets loose, he says just the kind of thing that sticks. If you're a Letterman fan, you have a lower opinion of O'Reilly than you did before.
January 6, 2006 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again a celebrity has shown how clueless he really is. To accuse Bill O'Reilly of "not being objective" and then admitting he has never watched Mr. O'Reilly's show is (sub)par for the course. I think it was tacky and very low-class of Mr. Letterman to ambush Mr. O'Reilly on his show Tuesday evening. If Mr. Letterman is going to engage in political commentary, he would be well advised to remember- "It is better to remain silent and have others believe you a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt". Mr. Letterman has only proven one thing to viewers who ARE objective- there's a reason his ratings suck. It is plainly obvious, to me at least, where Mr. Letterman gets his opinions...He reads them somewhere.
January 7, 2006 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink