Comments on: David Letterman is not funny

By: Linda

Linda — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:24:10 +0000

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.

By: simon

simon — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:03:30 +0000

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.

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:58:05 +0000

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.

By: Brett

Brett — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:19:11 +0000

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.

By: Greg Verrall

Greg Verrall — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:56:23 +0000

Hi Chad,

Here is another perspective:-
http://www.russellmoore.com/2009/10/04/what-david-letterman-can-teach-us-about-the-gospel/