Originally Posted By jonvn David Letterman apparently savages Bill O'Reilly on the Late Show. Which is cool, because that's how Dave used to behave when he was more entertaining. He should be more willing to do that all the time. <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nypost.com/seven/10 272006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm</a>
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Savages" is not the right word. How about, "loses it" which more accurately depicts Letterman's unwillingness to talk with a very good-natured Bill O'Reilly. Why have someone on your entertainment show if you are just going to attack him with mindless barbs as soon as he sits down? Jay Leno has so much more class.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Jay Leno is a marshmallow who can't interview people to save his life. All hail Letterman! -- who has the cajones to say the things that a lot of people would like to say to O'Reilly.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Reading the review in the Post here, I am sorry but I expect more of Letterman. He is a very bright guy who I have always preferred over Leno and can hold his own with anyone, so why resort to Rush Limbaugh type tactics ? It just makes no sense, and I can't wait to see it as it sounds to me like he should be embarassed, and acted exactly like what he was trying to criticize. Will have to wait to see the tape, as an interview in review may be different in person. Also to put O'Reilly and Limbaugh in the same basket is also just wrong.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Keep in mind that O'Reilly put David Letterman on his enemies of America list in his book. O'Reilly was expecting a love fest?
Originally Posted By DAR I caught the end of Bill's show yesterday and he mentioned that he was going to be on Letterman and Oprah. He showed the Oprah clip and mentioned Letterman was just the usual stuff with kind of a smirk.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Savages is not the right word. How about, "loses it" which more accurately depicts Letterman's unwillingness to talk with a very good-natured Bill O'Reilly." You're right. O'Reilly's a laugh a minute. "Why have someone on your entertainment show if you are just going to attack him with mindless barbs as soon as he sits down?" You're talking about O'Reilly right? 'Cause I've watched Letterman for years and that certainly doesn't describe him, but it does describe O'Reilly to a "T".
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <You're talking about O'Reilly right? 'Cause I've watched Letterman for years and that certainly doesn't describe him, but it does describe O'Reilly to a "T".< you then haven't been watchinglong enough - that was Letterman's MO - to make people uncomfortable any way he could - that was his edge and why I was drawn to him years ago. Yes he has mellowed in recent years ( maybe due to the health issues who knows) - but this sounds like he 'went off' and my disappointment is Letterman is more than intelligent enough to take on O-Reilly - toe to toe, without resorting to the same tactics he was complaining about. I guess I am odd as I like Letterman and O-Reilly.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The excerpt from the Post doesn't read too well for Letterman, IMO. I can't imagine that would be the entire interview. I'd have to see it before saying much more. Facial expressions from both those guys can say a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get a "feud" going just for kicks.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^ my take exactly which is why I said I will be watching tonight....but for those 'hailing' Letterman for taking to task - O-Reilly, the story comes across as if Letterman is a ranting goof, not the good talk show host he is...that is not a positive in my book, as I like Letterman and don't want him reduced to Rush.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "You're talking about O'Reilly right? 'Cause I've watched Letterman for years and that certainly doesn't describe him, but it does describe O'Reilly to a "T"." We must be watching two different people called O'Reilly. The one I watch/listen to makes his points, then listens to his guests offering alternative points. He seldom interrupts (as Hannity always does) but if the person he has on his show tries to avoid questions or offer nonsensical answers, O'Reilly doesn't just let him get away with it. Some call him arrogant. Very self-assured would be my description of him. Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh is much the same way - very sure of himself. I think that people who disagree with both of them may have some real dislike for self-assured people, perhaps because it goes against all the progressive/liberal sorts of messages involving self esteem and the right for everyone to have opinions on any subject, with nobody's viewpoint any better or worse than anybody else's.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Actually, the classic liberal (small or large L) viewpoint is that everyone has a right to a viewpoint, and the right to express it (the classic "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"), not that nobody's viewpoint is any better or worse than anyone else's. You think John Kerry didn't think his viewpoint was better than George Bush's? Of course he did. Self-assured is fine, but there's a fine line between that and smug sometimes. O'Reilly is better than some - he USUALLY lets his guests have their say. But sometimes, if it's a topic that sticks in his craw for some reason, he can be as rude and dismissive as anyone else. Limbaugh is just smug. His smug assurance that Michael J. Fox was "faking" or "off his meds," when he didn't have a shred of evidence to say so, and which revealed a complete ignorance of what the side effects of Parkinson's meds are, being a perfect example.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes. The type of movements he exhibited are typical of side effects of Parkinson's meds. So Limbaugh asserting that Fox was either faking or off his meds was pure ignorance, said with smug assurance, like he knew what he was talking about.
Originally Posted By mele <<I thought he said he was too medicated.>> Nice. Real nice. NOt that such a comment needs a reply but..."too medicated" as in that's when his meds decided to really kick in...something that doesn't always happen and cannot be scheduled. He didn't mean he took extra meds to compound their effects. But I gues it's not good enough that Fox defended himself against what he was accused of, let's keep adding accusations. Transcript: <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Couric_gets_MJ_Fox_response_1027.html" target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/news/2 006/Video_Couric_gets_MJ_Fox_response_1027.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh He didn't display such movements when he appeared on Boston Legal. <I gues it's not good enough that Fox defended himself against what he was accused of, let's keep adding accusations.> Who's adding accusations? All I did was mention what he said. But Fox was also accused of misrepresenting Sen Talent's position on stem cell research, and his interview with Katie didn't really touch on that.
Originally Posted By mele <<He didn't display such movements when he appeared on Boston Legal.>> Exactly. Because sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Riiighht. You just were being accurate to what he said. Because adding the "too" really doesn't change his comment or imply anything different than what I said. Sure.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because adding the "too" really doesn't change his comment or imply anything different than what I said. Sure.> I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course adding the "too" changes his comment and implies something different than what you said. It more accurately depicts what he said.
