Stupid Media Tricks
Cidu Bill on Oct 8th 2009
One of the tabloid television programs — ET, I think; I saw this on one of the tv screens at the health club — conducted a poll asking “Do you feel David Letterman has sufficiently apologized?”
I’m not clear why Letterman should be apologizing to anybody other than Mrs. L, and certainly he doesn’t owe me anything, so I’m not entirely certain how the ET audience defines “a sufficient apology.”
Filed in Bill Bickel, David Letterman, media | 23 responses so far
TasmanSea Oct 8th 2009 at 03:54 pm 1
I agree! It’s a little more reasonable for politicians to apologize to their constituency when they do something in their private lives people are likely to be upset by… maybe… (I feel like that’s the model being applied here), but it definitely doesn’t make sense to want Letterman to apologize- you’re right, he hasn’t done anything to anyone apart from his wife, and maybe the staff members he was sleeping with, depending on how he treated them. Random viewers thinking they’re deserved an apology from Letterman is them taking too much interest in the private lives of other people that don’t affect them.
The Bad Seed Oct 8th 2009 at 04:39 pm 2
A-men! I was initially intrigued by this rare glimpse into Dave’s personal life (the same as I was when he first announced he was going to be a father), but after a minute or two I just felt like I’d been snagged standing on his porch with my face pressed to his living room window. Now I’m giving Dave the same consideration I’d want from him, and minding my own beeswax.
Clem Oct 8th 2009 at 05:42 pm 3
I was taught 30 years ago that when a manager/employer slept with a subordinate, it was by definition sexual harassment. And what do you know, it still is…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_sexual_harassment
Frank the curmudgeon Oct 8th 2009 at 05:50 pm 4
He’s using apologies as a tool to increase ratings. I don’t like him but it’s not me to whom he owes an apology.
mkilby Oct 8th 2009 at 05:53 pm 5
Letterman could perhaps apologize for having the bad taste to use his personal problems to increase his TV ratings. Not that it would help, or even matter.
furrykef Oct 8th 2009 at 07:10 pm 6
I actually had no idea what this was about until I looked it up. “David Letterman, apologize? Why, what did he do?”
Guess that shows how much I live under a rock.
I was taught 30 years ago that when a manager/employer slept with a subordinate, it was by definition sexual harassment. And what do you know, it still is…
Sounds like a screwy definition to me. It might be unprofessional, inappropriate, and a number of other things, but any mutually consensual act can hardly be called harassment in my book. Now, if one of them was being coercive about it in some form or other, that’s a different story, but you didn’t say anything about that in your definition.
- Kef
Charlene Oct 8th 2009 at 07:16 pm 7
The problem is that from the point of the subordinate, there often is a sense that if he or she doesn’t comply promotions will not be forthcoming and a pink slip might be, even if that’s never spelled out.
paperboy Oct 8th 2009 at 07:35 pm 8
It’s the modern concept that every well-known person is equal due to their fame. Therefore, Hitler is the same as Roosevelt, Paris Hilton is the same as George Bush.
Ray Brady Oct 8th 2009 at 08:36 pm 9
When did Letterman apologize? I saw his Thursday night show, where he admitted to doing creepy things, but I haven’t seen him apologize for them.
Jeff Oct 8th 2009 at 09:30 pm 10
“When did Letterman apologize?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXaaKw3jLR0
Cidu Bill Oct 8th 2009 at 10:43 pm 11
Letterman didn’t violate his company’s harassment policies. Obviously, if there’s a complaint, then it’s a whole new ballgame.
Jeff S. Oct 8th 2009 at 10:46 pm 12
I was taught that to be considered sexual harassment, the agressor 1) had to be in a position of power over the victim, and 2) the act is something the average person would consider harassing.
If the women involved were never threatened by Letterman, or the act involved would not be considered harassment by the average person, then there wasn’t a case for sexual harassment. Therefore, he wouldn’t even need to apologize to the women at his workplace.
He owes me no apology. He didn’t do anything to me that warranted one. He owes one apology, to his wife. ET owes US an apology for promoting voyeurism as valid TV content.
Cidu Bill Oct 8th 2009 at 10:53 pm 13
ET owes US an apology for promoting voyeurism as valid TV content.
Would you have the scorpion apologize for being a scorpion?
furrykef Oct 9th 2009 at 04:22 am 14
Charlene:
The problem is that from the point of the subordinate, there often is a sense that if he or she doesn’t comply promotions will not be forthcoming and a pink slip might be, even if that’s never spelled out.
Right, but that would be coercion, and would therefore qualify as harrassment. My issue was that Clem said that any sexual relationship between a boss and a subordinate is sexual harassment. To paraphrase an old adage, you can’t harass the willing. If the would-be “victim” actually wanted it, it could be many things, but harassment is not one of them.
- Kef
The Bad Seed Oct 9th 2009 at 08:48 am 15
Truthfully, more than 90% of my relationships have been with someone I met at work, including equals, superiors, and a big client. That’s the only place I seem to meet people I have anything in common with, and I spend a lot of time there. But as long as you know what you’re getting into, observe certain boundaries, and everyone’s a grown-up, it’s perfectly fine. If he’s your boss going into it, then you have to know going into it that it puts extra pressure on you, whether real or perceived. If you don’t think about the potential bad consequences, then you are a fool, because you can be playing with fire. But if they act in actionable ways, you do have recourse. Sure, it can be difficult and potentially embarassing, but you need to consider that potential consequence before getting into it.
Daniel J. Drazen Oct 9th 2009 at 10:21 am 16
“Sufficiently apologize” = “make it sufficiently entertaining.”
Mitch4 Oct 9th 2009 at 10:59 am 17
There is something odd about the cultural assumptions about the rituals of public apology that have developed.
For several years Harry Shearer has been taking the pulse of this with the “Apologies of the Week” feature on his radio show.
Mitch4 Oct 9th 2009 at 11:09 am 18
Also … the concept of “quid pro quo” is part of the test for (some varieties of) sexual harassment. Charlene has a very valid point, that i would understand as about “quid pro quo” sometimes being very much in play even if not made explicit. OTOH a workplace relationship can be free of even subterranean, implied “quid pro quo”.
Karen Oct 9th 2009 at 03:06 pm 19
Maybe he felt he need to apologize because of the cracks he makes about other public figures’ private lives (Palin, Bush, et al). When he’s snarking on about Palin’s daughter getting knocked up, and in the meantime cheating on his girlfriend with his staffers, tends to make him look a wee bit hypocritical. And unfunny.
Annie Benson Oct 10th 2009 at 12:30 am 20
Do I owe an apology to my husband for the times I slept with co-workers before I met him? I do owe the same to my fans? I do have fans, right?
Keera Oct 10th 2009 at 05:57 am 21
Annie, you have a fan in me. Your comment made me LOL!
MoWatt Oct 10th 2009 at 04:20 pm 22
Annie, are you somehow under the misconception that Letterman’s relationships with coworkers all happened before he began a relationship with his wife? They did not. He’s been with her for around twenty years.
At least one of the affairs even continued after he was married. I’d say, while he didn’t owe us an apology, he certainly owed one to his wife. (And if you were sleeping with a guy at work after you were married then, yes, you owe your husband an apology as well). Not sure what it is about your comment that made Keera laugh out loud.
WoMatt Oct 12th 2009 at 03:55 pm 23
MoWatt, it was Annie’s last sentence.