David Letterman is not funny
Friday night was a late one for me getting home from work, and I found myself eating cold mashed potatoes and sausages in the glow of midnight hour TV. As I downed my dinner, I briefly flicked through 90’s action movies, foreign art-house flicks and sports recaps before settling on Late Night with David Letterman. While Letterman’s talking head occasionally makes me laugh, tonight was the first time the monologue made me angry.
Letterman’s admission
Letterman is a professional presenter, and I appreciate his skill in controlling audience reaction with every pause, facial expression, hand gesture, and vocal inflection. In tonight’s performance, Letterman shared how a man had threatened to expose the “creepy things that I have done”. He painted a picture of an inept blackmailer, with the story culminating in the bungler being taken into custody, the audience approving with wild applause.
Through the depiction, Letterman remained vague about what it was that made up these “terrible things” he had done. Towards the end of the monologue, his tone dropped to a degree of serious as he revealed that “I have had sex with women who work for me on this show”. This admission was followed by brief dramatic silence, followed by repeated admission and applause and laughter from the audience. Letterman then proceeded to joke how it would be embarrassing for the information to come out, particularly for the women.
Media and public opinion response
The media machine has kicked into full gear as I write this a few days after the well-crafted admission. Full copies of the speech are difficult to find on the web, as CBS has worked with YouTube to remove unedited versions. What you can find are news pieces that show Letterman’s serious admissions that cut away before the subsequent jokes and laughter. Similar to Letterman’s approach, the news clips focus on the illegal actions of the blackmailer. The focus on Letterman is not so much on the allegation, but on the impact it will have on his career.
Days after the event, the incident dominates Google first page, a result companies can spend thousands of dollars and months trying to achieve. The free Twitter analysis tool Twends aggregates tweets on a given topic and performs an analysis that is a somewhat crude but effective. Based on tweets containing the work Letterman, public reaction is largely neutral, likely due to the number of tweets simply re-posting the story. The picture shows what I imagine Letterman is hoping for, which is that the extortionist will act as a heat sink for public negative opinion.
-
- Letterman first page Google Results
-
- Letterman Twend results
Why I am angry
I am not taking a high moral ground on Letterman’s actions. He has copious amounts of charm, charisma, money and power, lightening rods to many of the attractive women who surround him. Sexuality is pervasive in the content of his show, bantered around for winks and laughs. It would be ridiculous for me or anyone else to suddenly pass judgement on the man for being a full participant in the narcissistic world he created for himself. However, this fact is separate from the inherent power imbalance that results when engaging in sexual relation with subordinates, be they university students, employees, or interns.
I am also not taking a legalistic position based on contravention of policy. Both CBS and Letterman’s company have stated that they do not have procedures against employees having sexual relations. I had a quick scan through my company manual, and like CBS, we also do not have a policy against having sexual relations with fellow employees. Mind you, we also do not have a policy prohibiting me from relieving myself on the board room table during client meetings. However, I suspect there would be repercussions based on it being culturally unacceptable, smelly, messy, and embarrassing for all involved.
What I am angry about is the method by which Letterman informed the world. What he has done in a four minute monologue is make similar abuses of power a laughable offence, a transgression to be cheered and applauded. That was wrong.
I am a production manager for a web studio with 23 employees. If I were to have sex with a staff member, I would be fired. I would forever tarnish the professional reputation of the other participant. I would lose my relationship with my wife and family. The relationship between my company and the accounts that I manage would be significantly damaged. I would destroy the culture of trust and transparency we as a team have worked so hard to establish. There is nothing in that reality to be laughed at or praised, and I am furious at Letterman for selfishly and irresponsibly inferring there is.
Will Letterman get away with it? He hopes so, clearly stating “I need to protect myself” and “I hope to protect my job”. It will depend on public opinion, ratings and advertising dollars. If society was reflected in that night’s laughing studio audience, then the answer is ‘yes’. However, if public opinion still feels that sexual relations with staff members is an abuse of power that has professional ramifications, then Letterman’s reign may be coming to an end. Ultimately, it is up to you.
Hi Chad,
Here is another perspective:-
http://www.russellmoore.com/2009/10/04/what-david-letterman-can-teach-us-about-the-gospel/
The outcry has been minimal thanks to those that have paved the way for him (Bill Clinton, Price Charles and countless others). Hell! in France it’s a national pass time.
I’ll run the risk here of stating the obvious but just cause you get away with it doesn’t make it right.
So to dig deeper it’s the second of his abuses of power that is more subtle, more deceptive, more public and more insidious. The use of the sad, self deprecating clown to allow his deeds to pass is cheap and doesn’t show a man that has done wrong and is owning up and taking responsibility for his actions.
In the Krusty gets Kancelled episode of the Simpsons the evil Gabbo gets away with an awful lot by employing his catchphrase — “I’m a bad wittle boy”. Ultimately he is caught out and the bad guys fail.
In the case of Letterman, his “I’m a bad wittle boy” ploy along with his abuse of his market share and broadcast media power to escape public judgment for his acts will prevent him crashing to earth.
The fact that the victims (the women and his family) are largely faceless means they garner no empathy from the public. This in turn means the without a visible victim it’s hard for the public to demand vilification. If there’s no victim is there really a crime?
Letterman is empowered by his own public profile to become the victim of the 2nd offense, the extortion. In this case there’s clearly a victim (Dave) and a perpetrator the extortionist. The public’s need for blood is met through the extortion element of the collective wrong doing and the world moves on and Dave keeps his job.
The extortionist being a TV personality of sorts adds weight to Lettermans’ opportunity refocus attention on the 2nd wrong. Perhaps had I been the extortionist Letterman may have had more trouble because getting the public to hate me might be more difficult than getting them to hate someone the media have a folio on and a collection of publicity photos for.
The rich and powerful escape again.
I believe it does no more collateral damage than an affair with a non-staffer, say a groupie. If neither coercion nor threat of coercion took place then power is not the issue. It seems to me that it’s a transaction between two consenting adults. Both had something to gain, and both had something to lose. In this case, they probably both lost more than they gained.
Would you still be (as) angry if you heard the same monologue without the laughter?
The _reaction_ is disappointing to me, not the delivery. Sure he’s a ring-master and can control the reaction; but still there is a reaction.
Does this make me angry? No, but it does sadden me, and even make me fear a little more for our nation. There are so many levels that I could comment on, but I’ll just choose this: we choose to whom we give power. It seems that most of the people in Letterman’s audience that night chose, maybe even against their true beliefs, to give power to Dave and to “the mob.” You say that after he made his admission there was silence. I am imagining people turning to look at each other with questioning expressions; uneasiness; what to do? Then he made the admission again, I’m sure with his characteristic raised eyebrows and mocking smile, and……the first person nervously laughs, another laughs a little louder, pretty soon almost everyone is laughing and applauding. After all, Dave Letterman is a FAMOUS PERSON, a funny person, a person to follow, therefore it must be silly to even think that having extramarital sex with a subordinate could be wrong. What a silly blackmailer. You may as well try to blackmail someone by threatening to tell the world that he eats vanilla ice cream while watching Disney movies. Thus the audience, and now a large part of the American world that cares anything about what goes on in Hollywood, has chosen to give up what is right in order to follow the crowd. And that’s the really sad and scary part. Because we choose not to give power to God (who says there is an absolute right and wrong) we choose minute by minute who to give power to, and unfortunately it’s often just to those who know how to manipulate us into following the crowd. God help us. Really…God help us.