In the wake of the arrest of director/rapist Roman Polanski comes the sex-with-subordinates scandal of David Letterman. The timing was a blessing for Letterman, since his aggressive excuse-makers now could quickly assert that the female employees he exploited were all adults and all gave their consent.
Letterman’s habit of engaging in sex with women who are his employees only emerged because of an ugly extortion threat from a longtime CBS News producer who lived with one of Letterman’s conquests. That’s doubly embarrassing for CBS, which has character problems coming and going. Letterman added to the embarrassment by revealing the extortion and his behavior in a jokey manner on his show. CBS had enough distaste for the explanation to have it pulled off YouTube and try to keep people from seeing it. (Wouldn’t it be nice if CBS had similar standards for its other programming, like, oh, most everything on MTV?)
In a second attempt at an apology, Letterman was more sincere. But in the morality-challenged entertainment community, Letterman knew he could surround himself with friends who found nothing to condemn, or even question.
"He's the greatest host in the world," said fellow comedian Chris Rock in an adoring haze. "I would never make a disparaging comment about David Letterman." Steve Martin offered this friendly take to Letterman: "It proves that you`re a human being, and we weren`t really that sure before."
Even celebrities few recognize (or remember) are stepping up to defend Letterman. "I don't see anything wrong with it," said Sandra Denton, better known as half of the rap duo Salt and Pepa. "I might have been one of the girls. He's a man ... and he's kind of cute!"
Susie Essman, who stars on HBO’s "Curb Your Enthusiasm," said people should treat the matter like adults. "I wasn't like, 'Oh, not Dave. It couldn't be! … He had a relationship with somebody. What's the big deal? He wasn't married. He wasn't cheating on his wife."
This is where the situational ethics in the egocentric world of entertainment begins to look ridiculous. Letterman didn’t marry longtime companion Regina Lasko until March, but they’re been together since 1986, and they had a son together five years ago. So was he free to cheat on her because they weren’t married? Here we go again: Conservatives are held to moral standards because they have them; liberals aren’t because they don’t.
Then there’s another line of defense raised by others, among them actress Jamie Lee Curtis: "David Letterman makes this revelation about his personal life because he was being extorted. I understand he was staying ahead of the wave and I commend him for it but really, is this any of our business? Why should this matter?"
There’s another way of putting it: Is anyone surprised? Surprised that a Hollywood superstar has affairs? Stop the presses! On that score I’m almost willing to agree with Ms. Curtis. Almost.
But then Ben Mankiewicz of Turner Classic Movies goes on CNN and in defending Letterman, actually underscores why Letterman’s behavior was so distasteful. "It's not like Bill Clinton having sex with an intern," Mankiewicz said. "It is the story of a guy who was single for 25 years, a sort of pronounced bachelor, having affairs with women who worked on his staff. That may be a problem for CBS. I really don't think it's a problem for anyone else in the country." He insisted: "I just don't see the scandal, and I certainly don't see the hypocrisy."
That leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It's clearly hypocrisy.
Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales also saw zero hypocrisy, even as Letterman mocked every sex scandal subject from Clinton to Gov. Mark Sanford: "Letterman can continue to lampoon sleazy political figures with no real fear of hypocrisy, however, because a TV comic is not an elected official responsible for the well-being of the nation or its citizenry."
But is Letterman only a "clown," as Shales put it, or does mocking adultery imply a moral judgment? AP television writer Frazier Moore forwarded a list of scandal figures Letterman has mocked, and then trumped it. With Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Letterman demanded the governor resign: "I mean, can you imagine," said Letterman, "if this happened to me how fast they'd have my (backside) out of here?"
Shales insisted the scandal shouldn’t ruin Letterman’s reputation as "the wisecracking, self-deprecating, overgrown adolescent who has one of the keenest, cleverest and funniest comic minds of all time."
Shales then went to an online chat at the Post website and defended Roman Polanski’s rape: "In Hollywood I am not sure a 13-year-old is really a 13-year-old."





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well at least you didn't call him a "pig."
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:01 ET by nwahsPerhaps that's some Christian compassion sneaking through.
Nah..
The thing that strikes me most about the new "conservatism" is its lack of morality and even common decency. Its void of any consistency or compassion.
Exactly how would "Christian
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:06 ET by motherbeltExactly how would "Christian compassion" respond to this, sb?
And this:
The thing that strikes me most about the new "conservatism" is its lack of morality and even common decency. Its void of any consistency or compassion.
Just what does that mean? I commented yesterday on liberals' tendency to make sweeping statements like that. Are you saying that conservatives are completely lacking in compassion? Really?
With humility and honesty
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:20 ET by nwahsIf Brent thinks as a rule, conservatives have morals and liberals don't, he's either quite dumb or very much a liar. When the Limbaugh did his little blue bill sexcapade to the Dominican Republic, it was a big joke ("I wish I could tell you about it, really I do"). David Vitter used his wife and kids as props in his "family values" campaign, the whole while he's using the service of prostitutes. Wheres the Bozell column on that one?
Politics brings out the worse hypocrisy in people on both sides. When someone demonstrates that hypocrisy while espousing Christian values, it makes me want to puke. Christianity has no place in assassination politics unless you are perverting it.
Are you saying that
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:35 ET by FeynmanFanAre you saying that liberals do have morals? If so, how do you account for the way Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, David Letterman, President Clinton, Roman Polanski, ad nauseum have been supported and shielded by liberals?
The point of the comment is exactly the point that you made in your statement. Both sides have people who do stupid things, but the left is always immune from criticism because they have no standards for decent behavior while conservatives aren't criticised so much for their transgressions as they are for being hypocrits.
See the difference?
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
When someone demonstrates
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:59 ET by motherbeltWhen someone demonstrates that hypocrisy while espousing Christian values, it makes me want to puke
You just illustrated my, and Brent's point. You point out the hypocrisy of "sinning" while "espousing Christian values." But because liberals don't "espouse Christian values" it's OK.
I have news for you: Christians are not perfect, nor do they claim to be. Failing to live up to one's standards or Christain values at times is not hypocrisy; it's human. We all fall short.
But liberals get a break on the "sinning" because they don't espouse any standards. It seems that the "hypocrisy" is a worse sin than the adultery, or whatever.
Thanks, mb
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 09:00 ET by FeynmanFanThat's the point I was trying to make. You said it much better than I did.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Re hypocrisy
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 09:33 ET by slickwillie2001Yep, well said. So why do liberals expect so little from other liberals? Is it a manifestation of the self-loathing and guilt at the core of modern liberalism, or is it just a dodge?
Of course liberals espouse
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:18 ET by nwahsOf course liberals espouse standards and adhere to morality. In some circles, who is feeding who is a bigger question than who is boinking who. In some circles, how a person is rehabilitating themselves is more important than comparing how bad they are and how good you are. In some circles, "saving the planet" is more important driving cars or having air conditioning.
Its ridiculous to claim liberals don't have a set of ethics and morality, as people here constantly stereotype them ("tree hugger" "activist judge" "socialist"). Now your morality doesn't agree with their morality but that s a separate issue.
And there, I just tore apart my last sentence in my first post :)
But that last sentence in my first post is wrong, so I guess it should be torn apart.
You're confusing morality
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:23 ET by FeynmanFanYou're confusing morality with political agendas that are, more often than not, self-serving.
Liberals have no moral foundation and no objective sense of right and wrong.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Thats an asinine statement
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:39 ET by nwahsThats a ridiculous statement, and doesn't deserve a response. You don't even bother to state how you know its political and not an honest sentiment or which liberal causes is of political or ethical standards. You think Mother Theresa had a political agenda ?
You're confusing me, nwahs
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:48 ET by FeynmanFanIs it asinine or ridiculous?
And if it doesn't deserve a response, why are you responding?
W/r to your second, convoluted sentence, I went into as much detail about my statement as you went into about yours.
Are you comparing Al Gore with Mother Theresa? Are you comparing the Environment Liberation Front with Mother Theresa? Are you comparing ACORN with Mother Theresa? Why did you choose her?
I think it was an incredibly poor choice to try to compare the liberal agenda with what Mother Theresa did. Have you no respect for that woman's incredible contribution to humanity?
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
→ Different standards
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:05 ET by Cool ArrowThis is great.
Both Liberals and Conservatives are equally moral, right?
If Berney Frank runs a prostitution service for boys out of his apartment, the argument that follows is "Well, Liberals don't run on morals anyway"
If Mark Foley sends horny Emails to his young pageboy, the argument is "Oh! The Hypocrisy!"
Let me get this straight. Foley is out of Congress, and Barney Frank is still in.
I think it's safe to say there are different standards expected of conservatives than liberals.
Hey! Another tremendously
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:36 ET by balboaHey! Another tremendously stupid statement. Congrats.
Bizarro Shawn
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:24 ET by Free StinkerYour assumptions and ignorance are both so vast, I can't even figure out where to start or how to help you.
Oh yeah. I recall now. You're a lost cause.
And you're a baseball score
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:33 ET by nwahsYou should confine yourself to scores and Palin photoshops, pale one.
And so nwahs ends another
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:35 ET by FeynmanFanAnd so nwahs ends another discussion with a personal insult.
You're a real disappointment, dude. You started off sounding so intellectual and all...
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Fey
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:44 ET by nwahsThat wasn't a discussion. Free Thinker insulted me and I insulted him back. Don't troll me Fey, nor think you're capable of blowing smoke up my rear. I don't care what you think until you exhibit anything remotely intelligent. I'm not out to impress you. I'll get by without your sanction, DUDE.
Bizarro Shawn
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:46 ET by Free StinkerYou started off with a bunch of false assumptions, and pointing it out is not an insult.
Man, nwahs,
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:52 ET by FeynmanFanMan, nwahs. You are a nasty little guy, aren't you?
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
I would much rather aspire to live up to good moral standards
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:10 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonThan to continually aim for the lowest morals known to man.
On the other hand....
Setting ones sights to a gutter level does make it somewhat easier to achieve, and maintain, ones goals in life.
http://gjresult.com
If you new anything about
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:15 ET by gmaniac1If you new anything about "morality" or "common decency" it would help your argument.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
Question
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:58 ET by KC Mulvillenwahs: "The thing that strikes me most about the new "conservatism" is its lack of morality and even common decency. Its void of any consistency or compassion. "
I wouldn't mind a little debate about morality (could be fun), but before we start, I need to understand what this means. I'm not trying to play dumb here. I genuinely don't follow this.
Are you saying that Bozell isn't showing compassion, and is being indecent, about Letterman's conduct?
nwahs doesn't really care.
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 09:11 ET by bretzysdudenwahs doesn't really care. He's just spewing garbage just to get a rise out of us again.
Thats exactly the point
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:54 ET by nwahsWhat type of morality is Bozell talking about. He affects Christian morality as he seems pretty down on adultery. But, he demonstrates a basic ignorance in Christian morality by intimating one side is closer to God (i.e., their deeds are God like and the other side's aren't).
But like "family values" I think its going to be hard to pin down exactly what we are talking about. It seems to be an abstract euphemism. I think we can establish its not Christian morality.
I think a good starting point would be finding an acceptable definition of morality. I hold it to mean behavior consistent with the correct behavior as taught by a certain philosophy or religion. Can we agree there?
If so, we then have to define Christian. I hold it to mean those who believe the teachings of Christ as documented in the New Testament. Can we agree there?
→ It's not garbage
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:56 ET by Cool Arrow"The most ethical Congress in history" has as its chmn Ways & Means, a tax cheat who forgot about his income-producing holdings and abused the rent-protection laws of New York City.
I'll start with expecting some semblance of honesty from the man writing the tax laws.
I'll also include Nancy Pelosi, who lied about doing something about corruption while condoning Charlie Rangel.
Mercy and morality
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:01 ET by KC MulvilleChristian morality has often been criticized as a contradiction: we lay out many laws as moral wrongs, and yet, the moment of punishment, we're expected to drop all of our objections out of mercy.
These are long and complicated arguments, but I think we can push aside the obvious: Christian morality is not a abdication of moral analysis. Whosoever is without sin should cast the first stone is quickly followed by Go and sin no more. We can still criticize others' morality (or lack thereof) without simultaneously being guilty of being "judgmental." Further, and I think this is Bozell's larger point, deliberately rejecting moral standards doesn't give you a pass on them. You can't avoid moral criticism simply because you reject moral standards. When Jesus taught that "you will be measured with the same stick you measure others," he didn't accidentally create a loophole.
That said, nwahs, I can't see where Bozell's criticism is as assertion that one "side" is "closer to God" than others. To me, Bozell made no judgment about that. You could only reach that conclusion if you brought that assumption with you - I don't think Bozell does.
OK - I've blathered enough. I look forward to your reply.
You must have reposted while I responded
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:07 ET by KC MulvilleI don't think we have to broaden the issue to morality in general. That would be a huge discussion. Whole careers have been devoted to it; it can't be captured in short slogans or definitions.
Let's narrow the focus, rather than broadening it: what (specifically) do you think Bozell said that contradicted Christian morality?
Well here's a big one.
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:30 ET by nwahsHere Bozell claims to know Letterman's heart or soul:
In a second attempt at an apology, Letterman was more sincere. But in
the morality-challenged entertainment community, Letterman knew he
could surround himself with friends who found nothing to condemn, or
even question.
Thats a pretty big self-righteous judgment. Thats not consistent with Christian morality. He doesn't know what moved that second apology, and him claiming to flies in the face of Christian morality.
→ OK nwahs
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:35 ET by Cool ArrowSo you're claiming it's a big fat lie that Letterman could surround himself with agreeable friends.
That's your argument? That Letterman didn't knowingly choose the forum in which he gave his apology?
If not Letterman, who the heck do you think chose the venue?
Its all included in the post above
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:48 ET by nwahsI have to repeat it for you? Ok. It is not consistent with Christian morality for Bozell to assume the reason for Letterman's second apology. Now read above. It says the same thing. What part of that don't you get?
→ I don't know
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:58 ET by Cool ArrowPossibly your Christian authority to say assigning motive is not Christian?
"It is the story of a guy
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 07:58 ET by motherbelt"It is the story of a guy who was single for 25 years, a sort of pronounced bachelor.....
Uh, sorry, a guy living with his girl friend in a supposedly committed relationship is neither "single" nor a "bachelor" and certainly not a "pronounced" one.
But this is the money quote, from Brent:
Conservatives are held to moral standards because they have them; liberals aren’t because they don’t.
That is the best condensation of what I have often tried to say about liberals and their charges of "hypocrisy" by conservatives.
I will quote it often. With attribution, of course! ;-)
Shales then went to an
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:15 ET by gmaniac1Shales then went to an online chat at the Post website and defended Roman Polanski’s rape: "In Hollywood I am not sure a 13-year-old is really a 13-year-old."
This is kind of like some of the liberal defenders of Letterman when he joked about Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter being raped by Alex Rodriguez.
They did everything they could to defend Letterman but in the end, children matter very little to them over politics, to include abortion.
Given its current crop of
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:18 ET by ThisnThatGiven its current crop of employees, CBS is going to have to call Dan Rathers back, just to increase its honesty factor.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
Eureka!
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 09:20 ET by ohiochilioslo just found the next peace prize winner in letterman for his efforts in apologizing for sleazy behavior! his words have the potential to bring understanding of cheating men and women worldwide and have brought peace to millions of marriages and hope to the world!
A few of points
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 09:52 ET by richb313When you live with someone as long as Dave Letterman did and especially have a child you are married, it is called a common law marrige.
Having affairs with people who work for you is not only creepy but just plain stupid even if the affair was consensual as it creates a toxic workplace.
Failing to live up to ideals is not hypocrisy. Doing something that you have condemed other people for doing is hypocrisy.
CBS not following it's own workplace standards by not removing David Letterman from the air and canceling his show puts them in a very precarious position. You see they have shown by thier very actions that those workplace rules are not worth the paper they are printed on and that my friends could and probably will cost CBS millions of dollars in ANY workplace litigation.
Should David Letterman be permanently kicked off the air or not allowed to continue with his show? No I do not think so but CBS could have removed him from the air for a period of time. They could also have fined him for breaking workplace rules. David owns his own show but by not having any consequences CBS is the enabler.
This activity has been going on for years. It is impossible to believe that it was not common knowledge to many many people. That being said I believe another shoe will drop the closer this matter gets to trail for the slob who tried to blackmail him. The Defense Attorney said the whole story is not out. I don't know, this still seems to be an incomplete story and maybe we will never know the rest.
This whole distastefull episode points to a corperate culture in deep deep trouble. At one time CBS was the Tiffany Network now they reveal themselves to be the Hypocrisy Network.
Speaking of sitting on a gold mine.
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:09 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonEvery one of the women that davey coerced into his little 'love nest' could be part of a very interesting class action suit.
Davey for being the perv, all the producers, directors, and every other network suit that knew, or should have known, as the defendants.
There is potentially hundreds of millions at stake if they all band together and document each individual occurrence and go for blood.
http://gjresult.com
Re Letterboy
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:48 ET by slickwillie2001Yep; every woman that worked there or applied for a job there and didn't succeed is now thinking, hmmm, maybe this is why. Dave's hit rate could not have been 100%, those that he hit on and turned him down now have an excellent harassment case. Men whose wives work at CBS are thinking, is she one of them? The others will almost certainly end up on the witness stand in Halderman's trial. He is very unlikely to plead out as a jury may be sympathetic to him after testimony about Dave.
If some civil cases are settled out of court, will we ever know?
Re the fact that CBS was contracted to Worldwide Pants, and Dave was not technically an employee of CBS, that's not too relevant. Whether CBS tolerated an atmosphere of sexual harassment by hiring Letterboy, or contracting with WWP, makes little difference. In fact it's just another deep pocket to dip into.
Well----
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:01 ET by bobwhiteafter reading all of this I still can't think of a liberal with morals.
→ bobwhite
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:03 ET by Cool ArrowYou'll come pretty close with Joe Lieberman.
At the risk of being contrarian ...
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:13 ET by KC MulvilleI was once a Jesuit, surrounded by the most flaming liberals you could possibly imagine. However, I can honestly report that they were sincere in their liberalism, devoted to morality, and most of them had tremendous skill at arguing both.
Although I'll agree, it's hard to think of many celebrity liberals at any given time.
Speaking of
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:37 ET by balboaSpeaking of stupid...
"(Wouldn’t it be nice if CBS had similar standards for its other programming, like, oh, most everything on MTV?)"
Kinda like Fox and Fox News? They can claim the high ground in their news division but then put on Family Guy?
Great column
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 13:33 ET by MCLIJazzGreat column, Brent.
this smuck really has a
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:44 ET by right of waythis smuck really has a tough time appologizing doesn't he? he's such a smart a$$ and smug that he just can't do it right the first time and has to do it again, ie sara palin. i quit watching letterman it the late 80's because he just wasn't funny anymore, and still isn't. he's so pathetic that he can't pick up women outside of work. he has to use his athority to woe them at work. the guy is a geek.
I don't see the biggie
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:21 ET by shawn228If it turns out that he intimitaded these women to have sexual relations with him, I would agree he is a sorry SOB, however for now all we know is he had consentual sex with people that worked for him. Big deal the man was horny.
"I have a Bush man-crush, you need to understand."-Mr. Shy
Letterman uses the controversies
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:44 ET by general companyOf others to make a living, I have no pity for this man. He has shown himself to be a spiteful insincere snob. He is the very definition of an elitist.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I don't have any pity for him either gc
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 23:35 ET by shawn228He deserves all the jokes pointed his way. I am just saying that I find nothing wrong with what he did, he gave into to his sexual impulses, it happens to many people.
"I have a Bush man-crush, you need to understand."-Mr. Shy