Media Monitor

{"contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"SteveAdubato"}

Hey Dave… I Missed the Joke

I couldn't care less what David Letterman does in his personal life. But, I'm a big fan of his. He's one of the funniest, smartest and most talented late night talk show hosts around. Simply put, I'm a fan of Dave's. But, frankly, I wasn't thrilled with how he handled this recent controversy around what he calls his "creepy" behavior in connection with women on his staff that he had sex with and an apparent effort to extort $2 million from him.

On some level, Letterman was clearly a victim of a really creepy guy trying to score a few cheap bucks by taking advantage of the fact that Letterman slept with some staff members. I'm not going to address any legal or HR liability issues when a boss sleeps with a staff person. It's not my area of expertise and, frankly, I don't even like talking about it. However, from a PR and crisis management perspective, Dave could have done a lot better than he did in his opening monologue Thursday night where he tried to clarify this whole situation and complain to his studio audience as well as those watching at home.

I wrote a book recently called "What Were They Thinking? Crisis Communication: The Good, the Bad, and the Totally Clueless". I have to ask, "What exactly was Dave thinking?" His on air disclosure was detailed-- in fact, way too detailed. He gave out much more information than we needed and it took him a lot longer than it should have for him to actually say it. He rambled all over the place. It was unclear whether Dave was going for laughs, sympathy or just trying to get this whole thing behind him. But, when Letterman talked about the "creepy" stuff saying "I have had sex with women who work for me on this show. Now, my response to that is 'Yes, I have'..." (laughter and applause). He continued, "Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps It would... especially for the women" (laughter and applause). That's a great one liner, Dave. But, I failed to see the joke.

Letterman is the same guy who, for decades, has made fun of-- as well as made a very good living off of-- making the most of sexual issues connected to other high profile public figures. I'm not just talking about more than a decade of Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky material, but also, this past summer, he stupidly decided to joke about the sexual behavior of Sarah Palin's daughter. Letterman's apology in that case made sense. It was effective. But, his rambling monologue last night, in which many in the studio audience were trying to decipher when the joke ended and the serious part began, just didn't get the job done.

Dave referred to his behavior as "creepy". That's not the best choice of words when you're making reference to you, as the boss-- a very powerful boss-- having sex with staff members. There are all kinds of complex power relationships going on there that you're going to have to ask Dr. Phil or some workplace expert about. But, as for me, the whole thing felt kind of creepy.

I respect Dave for wanting to disclose it all and get it behind him. But, he shouldn't have done it in front of an audience who came to see a show and have a few laughs. That's the wrong audience for something like this. He should have gone outside his comfort zone, held a press conference and done it straight. Let reporters ask him questions-- real questions without smirking and goofy one liners. If he had done that, then the extortion part of the story would be more front and center, which it's not.

And, finally, Dave saying that he's never going to speak about this again is wishful thinking on his part, because it's not behind him and he doesn't get to decide when the story ends. My gut tells me it may be just the beginning for a very funny and talented guy who needs some coaching when it comes to handling a sensitive media and public relations crisis.

To watch the related video, click here.

Steve Adubato, PhD is an MSNBC.com Media Analyst and author of the book, "What Were They Thinking: The Good, the Bad, and the Totally Clueless."

{"contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"SteveAdubato"}
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
{"commentId":9844437,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

David Letterman is handling this the right way. He's going at the issue head on and isn't trying to hide from anything. It also appears that he never even considered paying this guy off. Bravo to you David!

{"commentId":9844437,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
{"commentId":9847319,"authorDomain":"dbv5039"}

I agree RDS. And I agree, also, that Letterman may NOT speak of this again. At least in a public forum. We don't know all of the facts, but, I believe Letterman dealt with this about a well as one could. I've not heard complaints from the women involved. We don't know if he was married at the time of these incidents, etc. Bravo, to Dave for manning up. I didn't see him going to extremes to make himself look good. Or make excuses for his behavior, or even deny his behavior. Good job, Dave.

{"commentId":9847319,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"dbv5039"}
  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 7:03 PM EDT
{"commentId":9849258,"authorDomain":"roger-thacker"}

You both are So right. Dave did not try to cover up his misdeeds. That took guts to say it on mic going out millions of homes.

{"commentId":9849258,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"roger-thacker"}
  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 9:17 PM EDT
{"commentId":9855628,"authorDomain":"jjocarolata"}

RDS, I agree totally! Letterman will probably never speak publicly about this again. He broke his story, his way, on his show before the media went crazy. Good for him.

Still a fan!

{"commentId":9855628,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"jjocarolata"}
  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:27 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":9845262,"authorDomain":"tj"}

I missed the joke too. Dave sounded like he was marginalizing his difficulties brought on by himself, but as I consider what he said, Dave was very scared and knows he's in a lot of trouble with his wife, his co-workers, his friends, his credibility and potentially his career.

He may need to mock his own stupidty for a few seasons - he plays the smart guy mocker - and now he looks as stupid as his guest Joaquin Phoenix did the last time he was on.

{"commentId":9845262,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"tj"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 5:22 PM EDT
{"commentId":9845943,"authorDomain":"girls3333"}

Hey you did know that Dave just married this past Mar 2009? Also his child is what almost 5 yrs old and was not married to baby moma. He was single, not adultry, but single and some people do date at work. It makes sticky but not wrong when two consenting adults are in a relationship. This is not our government official but an entertainer.

{"commentId":9845943,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"girls3333"}
  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 5:53 PM EDT
{"commentId":9846023,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
He may need to mock his own stupidty for a few seasons - he plays the smart guy mocker - and now he looks as stupid as his guest Joaquin Phoenix did the last time he was on.

At least Phoenix's stint was an act. (No, that's not confirmed, but I'd bet almost anything.)

I'll put these in order of seriousness, and likelihood to be a major issue:

  1. his wife - Probably the biggest risk and the one that will cause him the most emotional stress. Could spell the end of his marriage, for sure.
  2. his co-workers - Could be an issue, I guess. I suppose there could be a few attempts at lawsuits, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some idea amongst his co-workers that this were an ongoing issue. Unless they have an employment grievance, I doubt most of them will much care that he has an issue in his personal life.
  3. his credibility - What? His credibility as a late night comedian? As a yuckster? Who is he, Cronkite?
  4. his friends - His true friends will still be his friends. That's what friends do.
  5. and potentially his career - I put this one last not because it wouldn't be *very* serious if he lost his job, but because I don't see it happening. He's at the top of the late night food chain, for the first time in ages. He's a money maker. He's not a news maker. He's a comedian.

You should have included "his sponsors" on that list, but ultimately, I think he'll *maybe* lose a couple.

I don't watch Letterman, so I don't know how he came across, but I suspect he'll come out of this just fine.

{"commentId":9846023,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"brianford"}
  • 5 votes
#2.2 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 5:56 PM EDT
{"commentId":9851412,"authorDomain":"tj"}

Brian, I probably missed more than that for Dave's new top 5 list but you do a great job with details.

1. Absolutely
2. By co-workers I also include disgruntled love interests like the guy arrested for the extortion who apparently dated one of the women Dave had an affair with.
3. Comedians like Dave rely on a good bit of credibility in order to be able to dig on others without being heckled. Different kind of credibility obviously than a Cronkite.
4. That's what friends do.
5. Career is everything else that I lumped in related to time-slot, sponsors, bonuses, future air time, retirement, his own change in desire for the comedy act, working with the same group of people who may have bad feelings.

I watched Leno and Letterman a good bit, and when there was a time conflict I usually just watched Letterman during the Leno commercials.

{"commentId":9851412,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"tj"}
  • 2 votes
#2.3 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 12:04 AM EDT
{"commentId":9851632,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I watched Leno and Letterman a good bit, and when there was a time conflict I usually just watched Letterman during the Leno commercials.

I TIVO'd Conan.

{"commentId":9851632,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"brianford"}
  • 2 votes
#2.4 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 12:24 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":9845951,"authorDomain":"chrisxk"}

I completely disagree with you. First of all...cut out the Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin comparison...Dave is not some bible thumping value preaching public figure or politician. Some scumbag tried to blackmail him and instead of making some nobody rich(I'm sure there are a lot of blackmailing nobodys out there who make a living of such), he came right out and disclosed what happened. I actually laughed while he confessed, Dave is a comedian...the lines in my opinion was funny, and I also think your rambling comment was off base because Dave was just...well...being Dave. He was just being himself...that is why people respect him, and that is why he'll come out of this with only a few scratches because he wasn't trying to be something he's not and frankly...it really isn't a big deal. Unless it was rape or threatening of jobs, Dave did nothing that was relatively unforgivable, especially considering he wasn't married until really recently

{"commentId":9845951,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"chrisxk"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#3 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 5:53 PM EDT
{"commentId":9884509,"authorDomain":"ktandnt"}

I could agree more, I have seen comments from other people are trying to say how terrible and hypocritical he is, and I say BullS***...

Letterman didn't campaign on 'family values', or by telling the american public was wrong for what they beleive.

A politician opens themsleves up to such critism when they are hypocrites. Dave never said he was anything but Dave.

Not only do I hope that he doens't loose sponsors, I hope he gains them...

{"commentId":9884509,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"ktandnt"}
  • 1 vote
#3.1 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 1:33 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":9846098,"authorDomain":"happilyretired"}

Were not Merrill Markoe and Regina Lasko at one point or another on the Letterman staff?. Those are the known staff members, so it would not be unrealistic to presume there were others. Lasko and Letterman did not start living together until 2001. Were the alleged incidences before or after this timeframe?

{"commentId":9846098,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"happilyretired"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 6:00 PM EDT
{"commentId":9849376,"authorDomain":"smartg"}

Dear Steve,

Great Post!

I think that it says something about Letterman, could or does he use his power as the Host to have sex with his staff? Is this a prerequisite to work on that Letterman set? ughh

Since Letterman's so called joke about the beautiful daughter of Sarah Palin I go out of my way not to even see or hear him. I do not think his apology was enough for the mean spirited remark against this young woman. I thought he should be fired.

I think of how disrespectful he spoke of the sex with the staff. Dave Letterman is an embarassment to his family and those he works with.

{"commentId":9849376,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"smartg"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#5 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 9:27 PM EDT
{"commentId":9851737,"authorDomain":"the-spirit"}

Dave is a liberal. No consequences. If people will stick up for child-rapist Polanski, they'll stick up for Letterman. By the way, I didn't hear an apology in there.

{"commentId":9851737,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"the-spirit"}
    Reply#6 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 12:38 AM EDT
    {"commentId":9851828,"authorDomain":"brianford"}

    You be sure to let me know when Sanford faces any real consequences from his actions, as a result of Republican pressure. The list could go on...

    {"commentId":9851828,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"brianford"}
    • 1 vote
    #6.1 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 12:45 AM EDT
    {"commentId":9872191,"authorDomain":"scarmouth"}

    I'm not sure I understand what you think he needs to apologize for. He was a single guy until he shacked up with his now-wife (& you don't know if this involved cheating on her & if it did, that's a private apology & a whole lot of groveling to be done solely to his wife, not the American public) & like all single guys, he got laid on occasion. If that's apology-worthy, then every man in the world needs to mea culpa for it. No one raised an eyebrow when his ex-GF & his wife were staffers & it was known they were in a relationship. If he hooked up with more than 2 women in all the yrs he's been doing his show, he did it discreetly & didn't "kiss & tell". A lot of people date within the workplace. Big deal; why should he be "sorry" for it? Some money-hungry sleazebag tried to "out" him by threatening to go the tabloids with "details" & that's called extortion & it's a crime, so Letterman called the cops. With an arrest pending, he knew the media would jump all over it as they have, so he rambled off the bare minimum of what occurred.

    This is really nobody's business but his, & why are Americans so titillated with everything sexual & so puritanical about it? He wouldn't have had to say anything at all about it if the media respected personal boundaries like they used to instead of circulating every little nugget of "celebrity gossip". You never heard a word of JFKs shenanigans in the White House as it happened even tho it was common knowledge to the media; now they're all over Obama for trying to bust a smoke FFS We could care less about it.

    {"commentId":9872191,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"scarmouth"}
      #6.2 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 4:52 PM EDT
      {"commentId":9882267,"authorDomain":"tj"}
      This is really nobody's business but his

      Actually no. At a minimum this greatly affects the CBS organization, women who want an equal work environment, and all the people directly involved with Letterman.

      Pretty obvious by the news and reaction that there is much more to be disclosed and Dave's initial presentation may have been a bit self-serving in its lack of accuracy.

      {"commentId":9882267,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"tj"}
      • 1 vote
      #6.3 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 11:51 AM EDT
      {"commentId":9882614,"authorDomain":"brianford"}

      Oh, bull-puckey.

      If you're referencing Halderman's lawyer's recent press extravaganza, you're referencing someone who is actually floating the idea that this wasn't extortion, it was just simply a business transaction. Right. David Letterman agreed to pay a man 2,000,000 for the "rights" to a smear movie about his various pre-marital affairs.

      Anyone with even the slightest modicum of common sense will find that laughable. It's pretty clear that he's desperate to make sure to float the "idea" that there's more to this story than that his client is guilty of extorting money so that people who don't particularly like Letterman can hop onto sites like this one, and repeat what he says.

      I'll wait for the trial, but if this guy gets away with anything less than what he's charged with, I'll be pretty shocked.

      If you're not referencing that, if you're somehow suggesting that there's more to this regarding David Letterman's affairs and potential legal issues, you should probably explain what news you're citing which show that there's more to this story? Who is suing him?

      {"commentId":9882614,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"brianford"}
        #6.4 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 12:08 PM EDT
        {"commentId":9885252,"authorDomain":"tj"}

        If you're guessing at what I'm saying and still missing my point, why do you get so worked up Brian?

        Of course this looks like a solid extortion case. I would give prosecutors a VERY good case for conviction.

        We are only a few days into a one-sided explanation given on a show. The extortion piece has been solved. Can't you accept that more credible information is yet to come out and of course the details are important on how we view Letterman's actions.

        {"commentId":9885252,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"tj"}
          #6.5 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 2:10 PM EDT
          {"commentId":9885971,"authorDomain":"brianford"}

          How do you know it's not just something like "dave loves to have a finger up his ass?"

          I mean, my guess is "sordid" = sexually embarrasing.

          Not really a legal issue, though.

          {"commentId":9885971,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"brianford"}
            #6.6 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
            {"commentId":9887668,"authorDomain":"ktandnt"}

            Oh C'mon for Pete's sake, if the women want 'equal work' then don't sleep with him... I haven't heard on peep out of any of the "poor victims". Not one of them has ever claimed that she was placed into undo pressure. He is a rich, old, white, man... by the lack of the womens complants, I will assume they knew full well what they were doing. And, to infere that they didnt't would mean that women can't make a rational decision?????

            He has no reason to apologize, and with my perception of Dave I can bet that if you hold your breath waiting for more of an apology that what he gave... you are gonna be disapointed...

            FREE DAVE.... FREE DAVE... FREE DAVE.... FREE DAVE....

            {"commentId":9887668,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"ktandnt"}
            • 1 vote
            #6.7 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 4:00 PM EDT
            {"commentId":9887811,"authorDomain":"brianford"}

            For what it's worth, in retrospect, I could have made the same point, less bluntly, but the point remains:

            It sounds an awful lot like the "hint" is that her diary includes some sordid sexual activities, stuff that many will find to be personally objectionable, or perverted.

            *If* that is the case, I'm not even sure how it would turn out to be admissible in court. What relevance would it have? To me, it seems as though any attempt to bring up the contents of the diary would simply draw a relevance objection.

            It almost sounds to me as though this attorney is essentially saying:

            "You'll drop this lawsuit, or the public will know that you like to stick your blank in her blank while someone else blanks..."

            Sounds like a threat, to me.

            Angling for a settlement?

            {"commentId":9887811,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"brianford"}
            • 1 vote
            #6.8 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
            {"commentId":9888306,"authorDomain":"brianford"}

            I changed my mind.

            I just watched the interview with the Lawyer.

            I don't think he has anything. I think he's grasping at straws.

            {"commentId":9888306,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"brianford"}
            • 1 vote
            #6.9 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 4:26 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":9852146,"authorDomain":"docknowles"}

            Steve,

            I don't think You get it. What are you thinking? Do you need another client? When you get off that high horse you're riding, you might want to pontificate on Mark Ensign. He's worth a small mention. Do ya think?

            {"commentId":9852146,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"docknowles"}
              Reply#7 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 1:26 AM EDT
              {"commentId":9864098,"authorDomain":"tbichl"}

              I agree, Dave handled this well, I am just waiting for Sarah Palin to chime in with a smack down on twitter.

              {"commentId":9864098,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"tbichl"}
              • 1 vote
              Reply#8 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:05 PM EDT
              {"commentId":9887800,"authorDomain":"ktandnt"}

              And, the better part will be when Dave 'chimes' back... Please Sara... Say something... I gotta see this!!!!

              {"commentId":9887800,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"ktandnt"}
              • 1 vote
              #8.1 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
              Reply
              {"commentId":9896277,"authorDomain":"rekrap1227"}

              A powerful, rich and famous boss (from whom a single word can make or break a career), uses his pretty young female employees like a personal harem.

              And you people defend this?

              The next time you ask for a raise, may YOUR boss close the door to the office and point to his or her crotch.

              {"commentId":9896277,"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182","authorDomain":"rekrap1227"}
                Reply#9 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 12:39 AM EDT
                {"canLink":false,"threadId":"691628","isPrivate":false}
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                {"threadId":"691628","contentId":"3343182"}
                Start TrackingStart Tracking
                Stop TrackingStop Tracking
                RSS feedSyndicate this contentRecent Articles & Seeds
                Steve Adubato, Ph.D.'s Latest Comments
                No comments have been posted yet.
                Steve Adubato, Ph.D.'s Recent Votes
                Steve Adubato, Ph.D. has not voted for any articles or seeds yet.
                Comments & Feedback