O'Reilly vs. Letterman

[epepke]

Kind of doesn't matter.

Well, I agree with the rest of your points. The Dave Letterman show is a comedy show with guests, and it's one well known for a particular kind of humor, which I won't try to describe here, because if I could do that, then I'd be making money from him, wouldn't I?

On the other hand, here, it kind of does matter, because people here are arguing like it was some kind of real debate, and because this reaction is one of the things that gives people like O'Reilly real political power, instead of relegating them to their proper place of buffoonery. Not surprisingly, this is done in a partisan fashion.

And in this case, which is rather evinced by this thread, if O'Reilly gets one thing right, such as the fact that Sheehan did say a particular thing, then they'll get months or years of cheap and stupid points about how conservatives are so picked upon. And so they'll focus on the occasional thing that O'Reilly gets right and deliberately distract away from the ones that he's completely full of bovine fecal matter about.

This has caused problems more than once.

So I'm commenting on it.

 

[Leif Roar]

That's quite a weak suggestion, and hardly makes "freedom fighter" an attractive alternative.

My point was just that this is an area where it's easy to stumble, because all the other words have connotations or meanings that make them troublesome too. No, "freedom fighter" wasn't a good choice, but that someone happens to pick that term in a verbal reply doesn't mean much.

 

[Lemastre]

Why O'Reilly?

I saw the last few minutes of the O'Reilly thing, and can only ask WHY he was on the show at all. Why does Letterman feel the need to offer another outlet for O'Reilly's biased nonsense? O'Reilly functions as a mouthpiece for right-wing propaganda and his own fulminations but has no other entertainment value at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

What would you suggest she had said instead, by the way? "Terrorist" strikes me as just as inaccurate, in that not all the fighters who crossed into Iraq would end up comitting terrorism -- some would commit regular attacks against US armed forces. (Labeling them as "terrorists" would also lessen her argument that these people were not "terrorists by nature", and that the terrorism in Iraq was a result of the US presence.)

"Insurgents" doesn't work as that suggests they are fighting against an established government as opposed to a foreign army.

"Guerillas" suggests a level of organisation and a type of warfare that isn't suitable for all.

Geurillas works for those doing IED ambushes and mortar attacks. Insurgents works well too because they attack the new Iraqi government troops more than they attack US troops. And terrorists is pretty fine for those that attack civilian targets. The combination of all three ("terrorists, insurgents, and geurilla fighters") covers pretty much every base. If nothing else, the simple word "fighters" would have been enough to convey the necessary information (that is, that there are people out there fighting).

"Resistance fighters" is hardly any better than "Freedom Fighters" when it comes to positive connotations.

Actually, I'd say it's better. The term "resistance" doesn't have the same absolute positive connotation that "freedom" does. I'm not wild about the phrase, but it would have been better.

Anyway, that aside, isn't it pretty harsh to jump all over a person that's inexperienced at speaking to media and not an expert in matters of military or international politics just because she used a term with some positive connotations to describe people fighting against US forces in a verbal reply.

Well, Bill's ability to nail her isn't exactly impressive. But she chose to enter the media spotlight. SHE wanted media interviews, it wasn't a reporter tracking her down in the midst of her private grief to badger her into making a statement she wasn't prepared to make. Being judged harshly simply comes with the territory, and if she wasn't ready to make a statement but did anyways, well, that's her fault. What you think her statement really means about her (does she hate the US? Is she on the terrorists' side?) is quite debatable, and I'm not trying to come to any conclusions on that point, but the statement itself was wrong.

Given how polarized her opinions are, though, I'm not even sure she cares about the negative responses. She certainly doesn't care enough to make a public retraction of that wording. So I wouldn't worry about feeling sorry for her about this.

 

[Mephisto]

Part of the reason O'Reilly is successful is that he's good at manipulating public opinion but another part of the reason is that his opponents engage him very stupidly.

Although I might agree with you that O'Reilly is little more than a showman, I'll have to assert that the reason he's so good at manipulating public opinion is that his audiences aren't a random cut out of the American populace. For the most part, O'Reilly's audiences are as fanatical as he is and bare nearly every resemblance to Rush Limbaugh's audience.

I think the reasons these idiots hold such sway over public opinion is the fact that they are shamless media whores who will say (or do) anything they believe their core audience will applaud. Letterman was also apparently guilty of this, but can easily be excused since he hasn't built a career around it.

If you think about it for two seconds - how hard would it be to be a comedian if you could screen your audience (and pump nitrous oxide into the crowd)? How hard would it be to gain support for anything if you surround yourself only with people who agree with you (or disconnect the microphone of people handing you your ass)? How hard can it be to be President when you don't allow any Democrats, dissenters, liberals, left-leaning thinkers, outspoken intellectuals or everyday Americans into your "public" speaking engagements?

 

[Art Vandelay]

My point was just that this is an area where it's easy to stumble, because all the other words have connotations or meanings that make them troublesome too. No, "freedom fighter" wasn't a good choice, but that someone happens to pick that term in a verbal reply doesn't mean much.

Of course it means much. The fact is, there is a large portion of Americans who pretend that all of the insurgents are justified in their actions, and Sheehan gave every indication of being one of them. With her comment, she crossed the line from criticizing America to praising the insurgents, and that is disgusting.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...The fact is, there is a large portion of Americans who pretend that all of the insurgents are justified in their actions...

I'd be very much interested in taking a look at the supporting data for this "fact."

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Oh, please, could we end the segment with Dave yelling "Shut up!" and cutting off Bill's mic?

I agree. One bloviated overly self righteous egotistical pseudo talk show host cum journalist per television domain is enough.

Charlie (unfair and inbalanced) Monoxide