[Steveknj]

I lean left on my politcal views, but to me, guys like O'Reilly and Stern (on the other extreme), are entertainers. They say outrageous things to get a reaction, to publicity. Heck, we are all talking about it here. That's his shtick. He throws things out there and it gets us to discuss. Of course most of what he says is crap, same with Stern or anyone else, including most of our politiicans out there. What annoys me more than what they say, is the reaction by "activists" on both sides of the fence who take what they say as the "gospel truth" and spin it to better their political views. I didn't see the Letterman show, but THAT is the tact i would take with O'Reilly. I would say, "Bill how much of this crap do you say for publicity? How much of it do you say just to get the extreme right riled up?"

 

[Steveknj]

I finally watched it, and that is about what Dave did. Bill may or may not be correct on the subject matter, but I do not believe Dave came back with a single response or counter-argument. All he did was sit back and come up with meaningless quips like "I don't believe you," "That is 60% crap," etc. No substance at all.

That, and the responses you propose, play well with people who don't actually know, or want to know, the real facts and only want to see a good spat.

The tactic I would use is actually learning the issue and facts, and challenging the other person on that basis.

The "real facts" as YOU see them or as I see them? I feel I am well versed in current events, but like you I have a point of view and I see "the facts" differently. TO say that I don't want to know the real facts is insulting.

The Letterman show is all about entertainment. It's not about "the facts". It would have been really boring if Letterman agreed with everything he said. He had to get O'Reilly riled up because it made for good entertainment. Those who want the news or politcal talk could go to MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. This wasn't about the news or political talk.

I look at it this way...back in the early 90s to me was the zenith of conservative radio, Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, Bob Grant here in NYC were all at the top of their game. Why? Because the country leaned left, Congress had a Democratic majority, we had a Democratic President, etc. So, the arguments between the conservative talk show hosts and the liberal callers, was great. Even I listened and enjoyed. Now that these guys sit there and spout their agendas, and the majority of their guests and the majority of their callers agree with them, it's boring. I love arguing politics, but how do you argue with someone who agrees with you? It's boring. That's the whole dynamic that Letterman tried to build. That's why Bill Maher's show works, or John Stewart. It's entertaining to argue