Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers - Page 6

Slumbering Fist · 10-05-09, 12:19 PM

I'm flummoxed why anyone cares and fail to see the debate over this little bit of tabloid fodder.

He cheated on a longtime girlfriend, not wife. He had sex with co-workers, big deal. The only impropriety is that he's a a boss of sorts, but these things happen, relationships evolve from ones social scene, so that includes work. (That Stephenie seems to be one of the people actually makes it kinda' endearing as shes no bimbo and you can see the playful rapport the two had.) But all these questions of personal morality and business ethics are immaterial to me because the guys a freaking comedian. He's an entertainer. Its not like he's held to some higher standard because he's on tv making jokes five nights a week.

I mean, its not like his work environment is akin (or as important) as a high powered law firm or government office, so its not like he was taking advantage in a serious workplace. The silliest argument from the morally elite is that he shouldn't be allowed to make jokes at others expense because he's exposed as imperfect himself. Thats 99% of most comedians and Dave's act, self deprecatingly pointing out what kind of flawed bonehead's we human beings are. If anything, Dave should be criticized for not taking advantage and poking fun at himself more in his confession.

siddd5 · 10-05-09, 01:26 PM

I had always viewed Dave's rapport with Stephanie as an Uncle/Niece thing.

Guess I was wrong.

I do think Dave should at least be reprimanded because it is most definitely a form of sexual harrassment in the work place, especially since the trysts were on company property.

Sadly, as usual in the corporate world, the higher ups get a pass while the lowly servants get fired.

bigjim25 · 10-05-09, 01:43 PM

Still waiting for the sex tape.

creekdipper · 10-06-09, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Dooku

creekdipper--

The thing is, creekdipper, I like people with big vocabularies.
They usually choose their words carefully, and often choose a particular word because it has a specific meaning, and that meaning doesn't come from the heart, it comes from the dictionary.

People who think that the meaning of words come from the heart are the kind of people who demand politicians apologize after they use the word niggardly.

Jimmy Carter uses some carefully chosen words with some specific meanings.
You can't be bothered to pay attention to what some guy with a lot of fancy book learnin' has actually said, but just decide to hear what you want to hear, and you call him an idiot.
Then when he is tries to explain that he didn't say what you thought you heard, you call him a liar.
And the more he tries to clarify his remarks, you dismiss him because he's verbose and doesn't speak from the heart.

Three reactions to your "carefully-chosen words":

Notice that you said that people with "big vocabularies" USUALLY choose their words carefully and OFTEN choose a word because it has a specific meaning, etc.

It appears that you blame any misinterpretation of Carter's words on the 99.9% of the audience who understood them to mean something differently from what he now claims he said (not what he MEANT, mind you, but what he SAID...according to him).

From my perspective, if a speaker confuses 99.9% of his audience...including educators, semanticists, editorial writers, those with doctorates, etc., the failing must lie primarily with the speaker rather than the audience.

You seem determined to prove the 99.9% (including myself) wrong by throwing distractions ("niggardly"??? How many definitions does that have...as contrasted with words such as "overwhelming" and "portion"?) into the wind and accusing Carter's detractors of unfairly judging his intentions (although you unabashedly take his excuses at face value). The best that even blind followers of Carter can say is that he made a POOR choice of words considering the nearly-universal misunderstanding of his comments (yourself excluded, of course).

My reaction to Carter's words were what I actually HEARD and SAW him say...taking into consideration the context and circumstances (he was asked about the intense opposition to Obama, not the motivation of FRINGE ELEMENTS), his body language, the reaction of his audience, and the continuation of his theme during the same conference...not what I "THOUGHT" I heard.

Do you also excuse Carter's misquoting of the signs he saw as his picking "carefully chosen words" with "specific meanings"? When he said that he saw signs reading "Bury Obama with Kennedy" (his misquoting eliciting gasps from some in the audience) rather than "Bury Obamacare....", did he choose those words to deliberately distort the messages to create a more incendiary message than what was intended? Or was the reaction of the crowd only based upon what they "thought they heard" rather than what Carter actually said?

Or was he just being "verbose"?

Maybe Carter should learn to be a little more "niggardly" when choosing his words.

creekdipper · 10-06-09, 09:42 AM

Meanwhile back to Letterman:

For all those who continue to insist that Letterman's actions did not amount to anything even close to "adultery", perhaps you should consider how Letterman & his wife view the matter.

If one takes his comments Monday night at face value, his wife was "terribly hurt" by his "affairs", he has "a lot of work" to do to "fix" the problem, his actions were "stupid", etc. These and many other comments he made clearly demonstrate that both he and his wife consider what he did to be something of a betrayal to their 20-year relationship. Even some posters here who are somewhat defending his actions refer to them as "cheating" on a "girlfriend". BTW, I think that's what would hurt Letterman's wife the most...the idea that she is regarded by some as just "a girlfriend" as opposed to his companion of many decades and the mother of his son.

Some here have said, "He's just an entertainer." How is that different from any other occupation? A hypocrite is a hypocrite. Yeah, I know...Letterman isn't in a position to make legislation that is based upon his beliefs. However, he (and other entertainers) ARE in positions to influence public opinion through their comments (why else do you think their remarks are so widely publicized and elicit such strong reactions?). Like it or not, many people are influenced by the opinions of celebrities...which is why they are paid millions of $ for endorsements.

It does take incredible nerve to make your living mocking others for their own flaws when your own are far worse. For instance, Letterman's continued mockery of Palin's daughter...who committed the unforgivable sin of having sex with her boyfriend (imagine if she had dared to "cheat" on her fiancee by having sex with her boss)...months after the news cycle for that story had ended shows a capacity for meanness in Letterman that isn't created overnight, and doesn't go away easily. Maybe a big dose of humble pie will be what it takes for Letterman to realize the pain that he has caused others...and remember, he was being paid for intentionally causing harm to others (even minor family members). The only difference I see between him and his blackmailer is that Letterman (assumedly) doesn't try to extort money from his targets before uttering his hurtful words. That and the fact that Letterman fabricates vulgar scenarios (Rodriguez molesting one of Palin's daughters) for profit, whereas the extortionist allegedly has some amount of proof or evidence of factual embarrassing revelations about Letterman.

chuckd21 · 10-06-09, 09:46 AM

I'm pretty sure comedians don't label themselves as moral barometers, whereas Republicans (and to some extent, all politicians) do.

creekdipper · 10-06-09, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjim25

Still waiting for the sex tape.

creekdipper · 10-06-09, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckd21

I'm pretty sure comedians don't label themselves as moral barometers, whereas Republicans (and to some extent, all politicians) do.

I get your point & would be inclined to agree, except that comedians make an awful lot of comments regarding morality. Maybe they could be called "immoral barometers".

Even taking an "if it feels good, do it" stance is advocating certain attitudes that others should take regarding morality. It just happens that most comedians' attitudes are less restrictive than politicians regarding sexuality.

However, comedians & entertainers most certainly do weigh in on many other "moral' issues.
Issues surrounding health care, immigration, abortion, foreign aid, military intervention, racial justice, etc. are all "moral" issues.

You think the artists who signed the petition to have Roman Polanski freed aren't labeling themselves as 'moral barometers'?

chuckd21 · 10-06-09, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekdipper

I get your point & would be inclined to agree, except that comedians make an awful lot of comments regarding morality. Maybe they could be called "immoral barometers".

Even taking an "if it feels good, do it" stance is advocating certain attitudes that others should take regarding morality. It just happens that most comedians' attitudes are less restrictive than politicians regarding sexuality.

However, comedians & entertainers most certainly do weigh in on many other "moral' issues.
Issues surrounding health care, immigration, abortion, foreign aid, military intervention, racial justice, etc. are all "moral" issues.

You think the artists who signed the petition to have Roman Polanski freed aren't labeling themselves as 'moral barometers'?

Everyone's allowed to make comments on morality. Everyone. Is it hypocritical to make such statements when you yourself are guilty of similar lapses in judgment? Sure, but in this case CBS pays him to make those jokes, no matter how he lives his life. Eliot Spitzer, on the other hand, was paid to uphold the law and his hypocrisy broke the very laws that he so venomously spoke out about publicly. There's a huge difference between the two, and yet both are guilty of similar transgressions.

I don't think anyone looks up to Letterman in terms of lifestyle. People have made fun of his Howard Hughes-esque crazy for years now. People look up to his talent though. Letterman has no influence over clothing or hairstyles or anything that say, Miley Cyrus does. Kids try to emulate everything Miley Cyrus is, which is why she would be under a microscope much more than anything Dave has done or ever will do.

But ultimately a joke is not a truth. It's a joke. You can tell a racist joke, it doesn't make you racist. But if you make a racist policy or a racist statement in an interview, paper, editorial or other such non-joking manner, that's racism. No one is asking comedians to be held to any kind of high moral standard, and they shouldn't be. They're just telling jokes.

creekdipper · 10-06-09, 10:32 AM

^ ^ ^

Excellent post, chuckD. I agree with 99% (maybe 100%) of what you said.

The last point (about the racist joke) depends upon the motivation. I agree with what I think you mean: It's possible for one to tell a racist joke without being racist. I mean, some things are funny..I don't care who y'are. However, I would think that it would also depend upon the circumstances. For instance, to whom the joke is told makes a huge difference. An open-minded person might repeat a "racist" joke to an equally-unbiased person because there is a certain amount of humor...although both might shake their heads at the blatant stereotyping which they both agree is wrong. In this case, it would probably only be told to a friend or spouse who could be trusted not to go around reckessly repeating the joke and attributing it to the original teller. They also could be trusted not to repeat the joke to impressionable kids or to others who might harbor racist sentiments. Of course, the tellers...if they are truly unbiased...ought to also find humor in jokes poking fun at their own race.

Having said that, there are some jokes that are so repugnant that any intended humor is overshadowed by the ugly sentiments.

I'm sure that there are those who say that there is no place or time for any racially-tinged humor, and I'm sure that some would be offended and label others as 'racist' for any humor containing a racial element. Likewise, some would be offended by any jokes poking fun at religion, gender, sexuality, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that it depends upon the audience, the content, the circumstances, and the motivation.

Edit: I do have to add one thing re: "a joke is a joke". Point well-taken, but (as any child knows), jokes can hurt as much as the truth...maybe far worse, in some instances. Even comedians ought to have enough empathy for others that they would realize how they would feel if they (or their loved ones) were the butt of jokes. It's one thing for the host and guest to engage in self-deprecating mockery and jibes at each other; it's entirely different to aim your barbs...no matter how witty you may feel them to be...at others. One doesn't have to be a paragon of virtue to recognize that children of celebrities...even if some incident not of their own choosing has briefly thrust them into the limelight...should be off-limits. I honestly don't think that Letterman ever realized that...as his facetious "apology" to Sarah Palin at the end of his remarks last night seemed to demonstrate. The fact that he & others get paid for mocking children makes it worse rather than excusing it, IMHO. I'm sure that Letterman would refuse to make jokes that he considered too offensive no matter how much CBS encouraged him or how much it might improve ratings.

Brent L · 10-06-09, 10:42 AM

Here is some of his stuff from last night. From the very start I've thought there was more to this than what it looks like...

GrouchoFan · 10-06-09, 10:57 AM

I'm just glad to hear about a comedian getting some action for a change, instead of some stupid rock star. If anything, I may admire Letterman even more now.

I thought it was a given that most show-biz types were moral reprobates anyway. What's the point of having a successful late-night talk show if you can't bang a few hot interns or celebrity guests?!?

Slumbering Fist · 10-06-09, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekdipper

...It does take incredible nerve to make your living mocking others for their own flaws when your own are far worse...

I know, Seinfeld and all those 80's comedians should be ashamed for making jokes about airlines when they, themselves are probably totally incapable of running an airline and dealing with that kind of industry...And how dare they sit on their high horse and make fun of fast food when so many of them also indulge in it?

The less said about Rodney Dangerfield and his "I get no respect act" the better. The man is one of the most respected comedians of all time, yet he hypocritically mined that routine for decades.

Josh-da-man · 10-07-09, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjim25

Still waiting for the sex tape.

Some excerpts:

"Give us some humping music, Paul!"

"Can I stick my finger up your ass?
[DEADPAN]"No."[/DEADPAN]

"So how was I Paul?"
"You were great, Dave. Super."
"Do you think she came?"
"Absolutely. Multiple times."
"Did I make a funny face? Because Chris Elliot says I make a funny face when I climax."

10-05-09, 12:19 PM	#126
Slumbering Fist DVD Talk Reviewer Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 3,152	Re: Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers I'm flummoxed why anyone cares and fail to see the debate over this little bit of tabloid fodder. He cheated on a longtime girlfriend, not wife. He had sex with co-workers, big deal. The only impropriety is that he's a a boss of sorts, but these things happen, relationships evolve from ones social scene, so that includes work. (That Stephenie seems to be one of the people actually makes it kinda' endearing as shes no bimbo and you can see the playful rapport the two had.) But all these questions of personal morality and business ethics are immaterial to me because the guys a freaking comedian. He's an entertainer. Its not like he's held to some higher standard because he's on tv making jokes five nights a week. I mean, its not like his work environment is akin (or as important) as a high powered law firm or government office, so its not like he was taking advantage in a serious workplace. The silliest argument from the morally elite is that he shouldn't be allowed to make jokes at others expense because he's exposed as imperfect himself. Thats 99% of most comedians and Dave's act, self deprecatingly pointing out what kind of flawed bonehead's we human beings are. If anything, Dave should be criticized for not taking advantage and poking fun at himself more in his confession. Last edited by Slumbering Fist; 10-05-09 at 12:32 PM.

10-05-09, 01:26 PM	#127
siddd5 Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 144	Re: Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers I had always viewed Dave's rapport with Stephanie as an Uncle/Niece thing. Guess I was wrong. I do think Dave should at least be reprimanded because it is most definitely a form of sexual harrassment in the work place, especially since the trysts were on company property. Sadly, as usual in the corporate world, the higher ups get a pass while the lowly servants get fired.

10-05-09, 01:43 PM	#128
bigjim25 DVD Talk Hall of Fame Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: WV Posts: 9,474	Re: Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers Still waiting for the sex tape.

10-06-09, 09:42 AM	#130
creekdipper DVD Talk Gold Edition Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,379	Re: Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers Meanwhile back to Letterman: For all those who continue to insist that Letterman's actions did not amount to anything even close to "adultery", perhaps you should consider how Letterman & his wife view the matter. If one takes his comments Monday night at face value, his wife was "terribly hurt" by his "affairs", he has "a lot of work" to do to "fix" the problem, his actions were "stupid", etc. These and many other comments he made clearly demonstrate that both he and his wife consider what he did to be something of a betrayal to their 20-year relationship. Even some posters here who are somewhat defending his actions refer to them as "cheating" on a "girlfriend". BTW, I think that's what would hurt Letterman's wife the most...the idea that she is regarded by some as just "a girlfriend" as opposed to his companion of many decades and the mother of his son. Some here have said, "He's just an entertainer." How is that different from any other occupation? A hypocrite is a hypocrite. Yeah, I know...Letterman isn't in a position to make legislation that is based upon his beliefs. However, he (and other entertainers) ARE in positions to influence public opinion through their comments (why else do you think their remarks are so widely publicized and elicit such strong reactions?). Like it or not, many people are influenced by the opinions of celebrities...which is why they are paid millions of $ for endorsements. It does take incredible nerve to make your living mocking others for their own flaws when your own are far worse. For instance, Letterman's continued mockery of Palin's daughter...who committed the unforgivable sin of having sex with her boyfriend (imagine if she had dared to "cheat" on her fiancee by having sex with her boss)...months after the news cycle for that story had ended shows a capacity for meanness in Letterman that isn't created overnight, and doesn't go away easily. Maybe a big dose of humble pie will be what it takes for Letterman to realize the pain that he has caused others...and remember, he was being paid for intentionally causing harm to others (even minor family members). The only difference I see between him and his blackmailer is that Letterman (assumedly) doesn't try to extort money from his targets before uttering his hurtful words. That and the fact that Letterman fabricates vulgar scenarios (Rodriguez molesting one of Palin's daughters) for profit, whereas the extortionist allegedly has some amount of proof or evidence of factual embarrassing revelations about Letterman.

10-06-09, 09:46 AM	#131
chuckd21 DVD Talk Gold Edition Join Date: May 1999 Location: Florida Posts: 2,411	Re: Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers I'm pretty sure comedians don't label themselves as moral barometers, whereas Republicans (and to some extent, all politicians) do. __________________ 31 Horror Movies in 31 Days: Season 2 (2009 October Horror Movie Challenge) \| Homepage \| Twitter \| YouTube \| Facebook \| 360: dvdguy

10-06-09, 10:32 AM	#135
creekdipper DVD Talk Gold Edition Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,379	Re: Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers ^ ^ ^ Excellent post, chuckD. I agree with 99% (maybe 100%) of what you said. The last point (about the racist joke) depends upon the motivation. I agree with what I think you mean: It's possible for one to tell a racist joke without being racist. I mean, some things are funny..I don't care who y'are. However, I would think that it would also depend upon the circumstances. For instance, to whom the joke is told makes a huge difference. An open-minded person might repeat a "racist" joke to an equally-unbiased person because there is a certain amount of humor...although both might shake their heads at the blatant stereotyping which they both agree is wrong. In this case, it would probably only be told to a friend or spouse who could be trusted not to go around reckessly repeating the joke and attributing it to the original teller. They also could be trusted not to repeat the joke to impressionable kids or to others who might harbor racist sentiments. Of course, the tellers...if they are truly unbiased...ought to also find humor in jokes poking fun at their own race. Having said that, there are some jokes that are so repugnant that any intended humor is overshadowed by the ugly sentiments. I'm sure that there are those who say that there is no place or time for any racially-tinged humor, and I'm sure that some would be offended and label others as 'racist' for any humor containing a racial element. Likewise, some would be offended by any jokes poking fun at religion, gender, sexuality, etc. I guess what I'm saying is that it depends upon the audience, the content, the circumstances, and the motivation. Edit: I do have to add one thing re: "a joke is a joke". Point well-taken, but (as any child knows), jokes can hurt as much as the truth...maybe far worse, in some instances. Even comedians ought to have enough empathy for others that they would realize how they would feel if they (or their loved ones) were the butt of jokes. It's one thing for the host and guest to engage in self-deprecating mockery and jibes at each other; it's entirely different to aim your barbs...no matter how witty you may feel them to be...at others. One doesn't have to be a paragon of virtue to recognize that children of celebrities...even if some incident not of their own choosing has briefly thrust them into the limelight...should be off-limits. I honestly don't think that Letterman ever realized that...as his facetious "apology" to Sarah Palin at the end of his remarks last night seemed to demonstrate. The fact that he & others get paid for mocking children makes it worse rather than excusing it, IMHO. I'm sure that Letterman would refuse to make jokes that he considered too offensive no matter how much CBS encouraged him or how much it might improve ratings. Last edited by creekdipper; 10-06-09 at 10:42 AM.

10-06-09, 10:42 AM	#136
Brent L DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Upstate, SC Posts: 11,104	Re: Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers Here is some of his stuff from last night. From the very start I've thought there was more to this than what it looks like... __________________ "Would I rather be feared or loved? Ummm, easy, both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me."

10-06-09, 10:57 AM	#137
GrouchoFan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Quincy, MA USA Posts: 287	Re: Letterman Faces Another Extortion Attempt, had Sex with Staffers I'm just glad to hear about a comedian getting some action for a change, instead of some stupid rock star. If anything, I may admire Letterman even more now. I thought it was a given that most show-biz types were moral reprobates anyway. What's the point of having a successful late-night talk show if you can't bang a few hot interns or celebrity guests?!?