On the January 3rd “Late Show with David Letterman”, host David Letterman called Bill O’Reilly out on his Christmas sham. I missed it.
I am a regular viewer of the show but I refuse to watch any show that people like Bill O’Reilly host or appear on. I do that for my sanity and blood pressure. That is one reason I have not watched the Sunday morning talk shows for many years.
I should have watched this time. Letterman called O’Reilly out during his segment when O’Reilly brought up the “war” on Christmas. He once again used as “proof” an elementary school in Wisconsin that supposedly changed the lyrics of “Silent Night” for a holiday concert. He never mentioned that his “proof” had been debunked months ago.
Lucky for me, and for you, the website Media Matters has the transcript and a video clip of the exchange. It went something like this:
LETTERMAN: I don’t — I don’t think this is an actual threat. I think this is something that happened here and it happened there, and so people like you are trying to make us think that it’s a threat.
O’REILLY: Wrong.
LETTERMAN: Because nobody said “Happy Holidays” to me and then said, “Oh, Merry Christmas. Oh, I can’t say Merry Christmas.”
[…]
LETTERMAN: I’m not smart enough to debate your point to point on this, but I have the feeling — I have the feeling — I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. But I don’t know that for a fact.
PAUL SHAFFER (Late Show music director): Sixty percent.
LETTERMAN: Sixty percent, that’s just a — I’m just spitballing here now.
O’REILLY: Listen, I respect your opinion, you should respect mine.
LETTERMAN: Well, I — I — OK.
O’REILLY: Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.
LETTERMAN: Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced, I’m not sure that it’s — I don’t think that you represent an objective viewpoint.
In Letterman appearance, O’Reilly repeated false claim that school changed “Silent Night” lyrics
It is interesting to note how O’Reilly wants Letterman and anyone listening to believe what he is presenting is true, yet when challenged O’Reilly wants his view respected.
This is a common religious and political conservative argument tactic. They expect one to ignore the truth value of their statements and just go along with them out of fairness. (Where have I heard that before??)
On the other hand when Letterman challenged O’Reilly’s objectiveness, he demanded proof. Logically he should have just said “I respect your view. I think you are wrong but I respect it.”
That is being fair and respecting the truth value of the statements.
*Side Note*
I added a link to my blog roll that goes to a listing of articles on Media Matters that focus on the “separation of church and state” topic. Media Matters is an excellent website that exposes a lot of lies and myths told by conservatives on many topics. It also takes the media to task when they go along with the lies or ignore obvious myths.
I don’t know how any Republicans can say Bill O’Reilly won that debate.
1. Letterman’s show is not a political forum. He brings on guests, allows them to plug their product and tell some funny stories. It is telling that Dave didn’t mention what product Bill was hawking.
2. If one watches Letterman regularly, like me, the amazing thing was what was missing from the interview. Usually after everything the guest says, the audience cheers, laughs or applauds. After everything O’Reilly said, there was only silence. Every time Dave put down O’Reilly, the audience whooped and applauded enthusiastically.
3. The one moment of Applause O’Reilly got was when he said Cindy Sheehan shouldn’t be calling terrorists “freedom fighters”. The audience agreed with him on that one point.
4. That applause for O’Reilly prompted Letterman to say “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling that about 60 percent of what you say is crap, but I don’t know that for a fact.”
5. O’Reilly has a tendancy on these shows when he’s in trouble, to say stuff like “Watch the Factor, you’ll get addicted, we’ll send you a hat.” He did it to Jon Stewart and even on his own show to Howard Stern. It’s a way for him to change the subject and plug his merchandise. Letterman wouldn’t let him get away with something so trite, saying “Well send Cindy Sheehan a hat.”
6. Letterman ended with a handshake, saying “Bill, it’s always a pleasure.” The audience roared laughing because that’s a backhanded put-down Letterman often uses. The lesson that Bill hopefully learned is that comedy will always trump pompous posturing. 😀
It’s a pity Letterman feigns stupidity on political matters. He did the same thing when Bush came on a few years back. If only Dave boned up on politics a little before these interviews…..he’d tear these guys apart.
Running away from a show with a conservative on it, to me sounds like you’re wimping out. That’s all you secularists *do* is wimp out, especially when it comes to Christianity, and Conservatism. You always want to get as far away from it as possible, because you just can’t confront it. In my opinion, science will never be able to compete with the supernatural or faith, and you deep down, realise that. That is why you always try so hard to stay as far away as possible from anything Christians, or Right-wing.
Not watching a TV show with a conservative on it (or listening to talk radio) is *NOT* “wimping out”. I don’t do it because I can’t confront them. If such shows weren’t just spin and rants and were instead REAL debates then I would watch them.
You are right that “science will never be able to compete with the supernatural or faith” because science doesn’t need to, it is based on real facts and evidence and faith is based on wishing. There is no race to compete in.
“Running away from a show with a conservative on it, to me sounds like you’re wimping out. That’s all you secularists *do* is wimp out, especially when it comes to Christianity, and Conservatism.”
I don’t recall secularists or the irreligious backing off to debate Christians at numerous times. Secularists (such as the Secular Coalition Lobbyist) have gone right into Christian right territory to debate.
“You always want to get as far away from it as possible, because you just can’t confront it. In my opinion, science will never be able to compete with the supernatural or faith, and you deep down, realise that. That is why you always try so hard to stay as far away as possible from anything Christians, or Right-wing.”
Faith is sticking with something, even if logic contradicts it (according to the skeptic’s dictionary). Faiths, such as Christianity, need closed-minded, dogmatic individuals to follow them. Science only requires people who can test out claims and come up with the most probable and valid conclusions. Science is always open to change. This method enables past errors to be correct, which faith doesn’t. This method, rather than faith, is used more then ever to solve practical problems. Airplanes, antibiotics, space shuttles, and numerous more things have been invented using science. What has faith helped develop?
I also have another statement on your view that faith is superior to science. Greek Science has lasted a heck of a lot longer than Greek Faith (Greek Mythology). Why is this? Appears as if faith lost to science there, what makes you think christianity will be any different?