This video clip is flying across the Internet at a faster pace then the Star Wars or Numa Numa Kids combined, but I wanted to take a minute to talk about it and point out a few things. I’m talking about the Bill O’Reilly - David Letterman clip, of course, where surprisingly Letterman doesn’t back down to the obscene claims O’Reilly begins spouting.
I’ve uploaded the clip here to Shyzer and even though it’s 12 MB, I’d highly suggest you download it to at least watch it once, if for no other reason than it’s highly entertaining. Right off the bat, you can see Letterman dipping his pencil in O’Reilly’s drink and stirring it around for a bit. Five minutes later, O’Reilly asks is that’s his drink, Letterman answers yes with a grin, and the crowd laughs as he takes a big gulp.
But what I really want to take a closer look at is the technique Bill O’Reilly has seemed to master - the art of deceptive implication. About ten seconds before the seven minute marker, O’Reilly is trying to explain to Letterman why he detests Cindy Sheehan. Listen to him carefully:
We believe that the United States, particularly the military, are doing a noble thing. A noble thing. The soldiers and Marines are noble. They are not terrorists and when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan; called the insurgents freedom fighters, we don’t like that.
Now look at that quote again and more importantly, listen to the way he says it in the clip. This is classic O’Reilly chicanery. He starts off by praising the United States, the military, and the soldiers. He calls them noble three times in a row in order to strike the sympathetic chord within his viewers. He’s baiting us for his next sentence so that our brains will subtly make the inference on our own.
They are not terrorists and when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan; called the insurgents freedom fighters, we don’t like that.
Do you see what he did there? Do you hear the two heavy and drawn out pauses he makes in his voice so that we are given the impression that Cindy Sheehan is calling our soldiers terrorists? If not, allow me to show you. This is what he’s saying, broken down even further:
“Our noble soldiers are not terrorists and when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan (pause long enough for us to make the assumption that Sheehan is calling our troops terrorists); called the insurgents freedom fights, we don’t like that (again, long pause so our brain can wrap it up.)”
It’s the same method the Bush Administration used for linking Iraq and 9/11 back in 2003. This is not some awkward sentence that O’Reilly is stumbling over. When read, it loses some of its power, because you can see by the punctuation that he is saying Sheehan called the insurgents freedom fighters instead of calling American soldiers terrorists. However, when spoken and combined with the right mixture of pauses and innuendos, it’s a powerful tool of deception. He never comes out and says that Sheehan called our troops terrorists. He knows that if he does that, he can be called out for it by others for spreading false lies. So what does he do? He speaks with sentences that would make an English Lit teacher cringe, but that make the American viewers at home think he’s saying what he won’t come out and say. And I must say, he’s amazingly superb at it.
The problem with O’Reilly is that he rarely places himself in situations as the one that occurred on Letterman. On his show, if somebody begins to disprove what he’s saying, he essentially drowns out their voice by screaming at them about how American is under attack. He did appear on The Daily Show, which I’ll give him credit for doing so, but even then Jon Stewart went much softer on him then I would have hoped for. It seems he prefers to let O’Reilly make an ass of himself on his own show and then just laugh along at the absurdity of it. (For a great example of this, check out this clip from about a month ago.) But like I said, O’Reilly rarely places himself in a situation where somebody could, let’s say, pounce on the Ridgeview, Wisconsin example he so proudly paraded as an example of the “war on Christmas” that liberals were waging. If you only took O’Reilly’s word for it, you’d be left with the impression that a school board in Wisconsin had changed the lyrics of “Silent Night” to “Cold in the Night” in order to be politically correct. In reality, the “Cold in the Night” version is part of a coherent children’s musical written in 1988 called “The Little Tree’s Christmas Story.” As with other musicals, the words to some traditional Christmas songs were tailored to tell the tree’s story. Of course, after all the negative attention and publicity O’Reilly has focused upon the school, they are going back and redoing the musical with the carols’ tradition tunes, which will in essence render the musical incomprehensible. Bravo, O’Reilly. Bravo.
The examples go on and on and Letterman clearly proved in this exchange that he’s no Jon Stewart by hiding behind the thin veil of “I’m not smart enough to debate you,” but he also confronted O’Reilly on almost every talking point he tried to bring up, which is rare for main stream talk show hosts in this day and age. I only wish Letterman’s staff had done some homework and given him some examples and cases where O’Reilly has flat out lied on his television program. The interview would have been even more powerful had it ended with O’Reilly tripping over himself and his past quotes, but alas, I’ll take what I can get and appreciate every second of Letterman holding his ground. Especially when you remember the fact that The Late Show isn’t supposed to be some political debate forum, but instead a place for celebrities to pitch their latest book or movie.
All in, this clip at least proves that (A) Letterman can still be entertaining from time to time, (B) Not all crap goes unchecked, and (C) Bill O’Reilly is still amazingly ignorant.
And just as a little side note for O’Reilly, since this has always been a pet peeve of mine. It’s M-eye-6, not M-1-6, as in Military Intelligence (section) 6. When’s the last time anybody called the Central Intelligence Agency C-1-A?