Colbert, O'Reilly, and an Abuse of Language

O'REILLY: It is tough being me. Is it tough being you?
COLBERT: It's hard for me to be you. I'll tell you that much.
O'REILLY: It is? It is? Don't you owe me an enormous amount of money?
COLBERT: Well, if I were imitating you I would, Bill. But there's a difference between imitation and emulation. Let me tell you the difference. OK? If you imitate someone, you owe them a royalty check. If you emulate them, you don't. There's a big difference. Check your lawyer.

Colbert, O’Reilly, and an Abuse of Language

One of the many things that makes Stephen Colbert so funny and Bill O’Reilly so irritating to many people is their flagrant abuse of language. In a January 18th, 2007, interview on the O’Reilly Factor, the king of conservative talk shows and the court jester of the biased media faced off in a discussion where their stapled use of abused language went head-to-head in a hilarious shootout. One of the best examples of the kind of equivocation that goes on in these exchanges comes right between 2:00-2:27 in the video where O’Reilly asks Colbert if it is tough to be him. Colbert fires back and says that it is tough for him to be O’Reilly and O’Reilly responds by asking if Colbert owes him a lot of money. Then comes the equivocation from Colbert, "if I were imitating you I would, Bill. But there's a difference between imitation and emulation. Let me tell you the difference. OK? If you imitate someone, you owe them a royalty check. If you emulate them, you don't. There's a big difference" (1). Colbert's premises are that (A) emulation and imitation are not the same thing, (B) imitation warrants legal royalties and (C) emulation does not warrant legal royalties. Therefore, Colbert’s conclusion is that he does not owe O’Reilly royalties due to his emulating rather then imitating. The problem with Colbert’s equivocated argument is that he uses a synonym to change the meaning of the subject matter. He draws a distinction between two words that share the same definition, "an effort or desire to equal" (2). Rather then imitation or emulation, the best word for Colbert would be "mockery," for that is what his argument is truly achieving. However, the intention and purpose of such an equivocated answer is to more make fun of O’Reilly, and other talk show hosts, in the same style in which they themselves argue. Equivocations are bandied about frequently by a verity of talk show host and Colbert is simply capitalizing on the abuse of language by repeating the procedure in a farcical way.

(1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244882,00.html
(2) Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.