Rethinking David Letterman: Exactly how are we supposed to feel?

I want to believe Maureen Dowd when she says the whole David Letterman affair is simply about "the erotic pull of proximity." But I'm not sure I'm there yet.

After a week of breathless reportage about the comic's admitted flings with female staffers -- and it's a sign of the media times that it feels like this story has been around so much longer -- one thing is obvious.

We have not yet, as a pop culture-breathing, tabloid-fueled nation, decided how we feel about powerful older guys seducing the young women who work for them.

I agree with MoDo on one thing; this is not a Polanski-level offense. Given what we know and how those involved are reacting, it doesn't seem likely anyone was forced to do anything they didn't want to happen.

But this is an example of a powerful entertainer having sexual relationships with young women who depend on him for their income and their careers. Much as I hate the idea of delving deeper into the details of these relationships, we don't know enough to say whether Letterman broke any laws or crossed any lines.

Brilliant as Dowd's column was -- dotted with dazzling pop culture references to Hannibal Lecter and Mad Men -- it seems to me she gives Letterman an awfully wide benefit of the doubt. This may be the first time I've seen a column gently defending an entertainer by noting two TV executives married subordinates. And Dowd, who has appeared on Letterman's show several times, doesn't spare a line to let us know how she feels about the guy personally, and whether those feelings have affected her conclusions.

And though MoDo downplays any connection to Bill Clinton, this reminds me exactly of the moment the Lewinsky allegations were confirmed. Once again, an admired public figure admits a relationship with a woman many, many years his junior, who worked for him, after circumstances compelled the admission.

Most men, lacking the armor of celebrity, wealth, comedic genius and fan affection, would be less esteemed in the public sphere. Does Letterman get a pass, as Clinton did from many feminists, because we like him so?

I've written a brief analysis for a friend at TV Week collecting opinions from columnists around the country, and I don't think Letterman's in danger, unless there are substantially skeevy new revelations coming about his conduct. If anything, the constant media attention may help the accused suspect -- this morning, the Today show was still leading with the story -- whose strategy seems to consist of trying to scare everyone involved into avoiding a trial.

And to those whose knees are already jerking to pile on the "who cares?" comments, I would only say this: Such incidents help us all decide how we feel about this stuff if and when it happens in our own lives.

Right now, I'm feeling a little disappointed in a performer who always seemed to have a strong moral compass. And maybe a little disappointed in the people making excuses for him, too.

.

Comments

[TechRider]

why is this anyone's busy but his own?

[Lila]

Marriages, even seven, are legal. Fornicating, having illegitimate kids, and serial affairs is what people object to Dave. And well they should object. Of course, the "church" says no abortion, but is strangely silent on how one gets that way. Curious.

[Lila]

Humiliating for his wife? You mean the wife who prior to their marriage had his child, while he was fornicating with another one too. One just happened to get pregnant. Stop witht he sympathy. The end of his career can't come soon enough and women, get a grip and stop putting out.

[Joyce]

Oh how humiliating for his wife, and so very embarrassing for all of those women that were involved...not to mention the shetland pony and the German Shepherd!

[chet]

People who once thought that Letterman had character and integrity may no longer feel the same. I am one of those people. He's not a criminal, he's just an unscrupulous sleeze. I'd like to see him put off the air.

[Paul]

Letterman is fine; he never was the “Family Values” type. Yes, he probably cheated on his girlfriend now wife. But at least he does go around claiming he is Mr. “Family Values” like some of our politicians/ preachers (can you just see the grin on all “Fake News” reporters/ commentators and the Palin fringe). This has been a tough summer, for Dave, for our economy but at least he did not end up on the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Sanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

[Dave]

The guy actually brought one of his girlfriends along on vacation with his wife. Now, that's a set of BALLS.

[Jason]

Jeez, what's everyone crying about. This guy gets more Poontang in a week then most white American males get in a lifetime. You go Dave! You The Man!

[Betty Jean]

David Letterman and Bob Barker are both "pukes", they have no morles, I don't watch these creeps. It's getting to the point, where, if your straight, and great, your out of sync with this current world. Forget it, I'll stick with the morle code, and I don't want to watch people that use their power and $$$ to rip off a piece, I have NO RESPECT for these freaks! I watch Jay Leno, he's got "class"!!!

[Bulletinizer]

I just saw the replay of Dennis Miller telling Bill O'Reilly why TV critics are a self-loathing group... "They sit around in their underwear forced to watch shows they hate for 60K a year. It's no wonder they transfer some of that hate into their views." BINGO!

Correction: 60K minus 5%.

[McBob]

Dave cheated on his current wife before they were married? In entertainment circles that's expected...non-story!

[Jim]

We need to remember that Mr. Haldermann is the criminal here. Letterman, as far as we know, has not committed any crime. As long as he did not harass anyone or otherwise violate his company's policies then he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

All of us know that relationships develop all the time in the workplace for complex reasons. Dave and Stephanie should be left alone.

[D.G.]

Great piece Mr. Deggans. One of your best. The point of a comedian like Letterman's is to point out hypocrisy and absurdity in too serious situations. This guy liked to pork young, good looking women who worked for him. He did some of this stuff while in a committed relationship. He was a poor role model to his son. Dowd feels the crime is almost victimless, but it's not -- how do his wife and son feel when they hear publicly his Dad is a "Dirty 'ol man" who serially bangs hot staffers? It's not "wrong" what he did, but it does make him lose some luster. The people defending his comedic, brilliant, "honest" fashion of handling the problem and making him into something greater are really off base.

[ezbreezer]

Something of this sort could never take place in a newsroom, especially not to a local celebrity and TV critic.

[John]

"Such incidents help us all decide how we feel about this stuff if and when it happens in our own lives."

When what happens in our own lives?

When learning that we've been cheated on, apparently numerous times, while in what we thought were exclusive relationships? I don't think any TV talk show host's saga can prepare you for that.

When we have the opportunity to have sex with much younger subordinates while in a long term relationship with someone else? I think we can decide how to feel about this without a public example.

"I'm feeling a little disappointed in a performer who always seemed to have a strong moral compass. And maybe a little disappointed in the people making excuses for him, too."

I'm feeling like you're devoting far too much thought to this. Most people on TV seem like just what they are -- TV performers. We don't get a whole lot more insight into what kind of people talk show hosts really are from watching their on-air personae than we do actors by watching them portray roles on "Lost."

And I don't think people dismissing the Letterman fiasco are making excuses for him. They simply have more important things to think about.

[Jeff]

For one reason or another, this seems to have been taken up as a cause by some. Reading the comments of some bloggers and critics, it almost feels like a vendetta.

I have a very strong feeling that this won't be dropped until someone manages to dig up someone who can be convinced/coerced/bribed/double talked into saying something that can be construed, however twisted and tortured, as an accusation of harassment.

[RagsTTiger]

What about the huge loop hole? CBS has a policy manual that must be signed off by all employees. The Letterman Show, is totally owned by World Wide Pants. They "buy time" on CBS to air the show. I thought this to be a strange way to approach this issue, as this is hardly an infomercial or bartered product. Letterman never signed their policy, as he is not an employee of CBS. WWP has NO such policy. CBS appears to be trying to put as much distance between them and Letterman on a technical legal issue. Rating spikes they can live with, law suits they can't.

[Peter O'Connell]

YOU'RE feeling a little disappointed? Try reading the crap that you and all the other folks trying to opine and cash in on this spew forth.

So far its all adults behaving badly and its old news. I know it builds hits and sells papers...but the rest of the world has moved on and all the angles on this story are tiresome.

Can't you find another horse to kick?

[dreaming]

this type of thing is only fodder for ninnies in the u.s.

one imagines euros are laughing at our immaturity, as usual ....

[Betty]

Unless you are ready to outlaw all interoffice work relationships that involve a boss and an underling, I don't see where condemnation has any merits based on the facts at hand.

As far as I can tell, nobody would have even known about this if the ex-boyfriend of one of the women hadn't tried to blackmail him. Nobody who works for him has complained or suggested his behavior favored anybody he sleeps with.

[Peter M Herford]

The relationship between power and sex have been well understood and much studied. The caveats that Eric Deggans raises about potential new revelations or information are well taken. However, journalists are not prosecutors, nor are they criminal investigators. We (am one) do not have the appointed powers, the subpoena rights and responsibilities to go beyond what we do have the responsibility and right to do: research and ask questions. Recent trends in journalism have created an army of second guessers who often without a shred of evidence leap to conclusions. Another subject for another time.
If, as Mr. Deggans says, the Letterman situation helps individuals work out their own case histories, more power to those individuals, but journalists have even less training in psychology and psychiatry to play amateur in that field too.
Anyone who works in a creative field that involves a community of people, whether it is a symphony orchestra, a quartet, a TV show or the latest musical comedy knows that liaisons come and go with frequency and alacrity. There is nothing new here. Not to mention the film community and serial sexual behavior,.
Its not the argument "who cares", its the stunning notion that anyone is surprised. Ask any young, bright, intelligent woman how many times she gets hit on by older men. The professional literature in sociology, psychology and psychiatry is replete with studies that document older men's attraction for younger women. Yes we want to maintain our youth, among a lot of other motivations. Women have moved toward equality here too in recent years. In many circles it is now acceptable for an older woman to have relations with, and indeed marry, a much younger man. We all have the right to our individual value systems and can make our individual judgements accordingly. Mr. Letterman is hardly unique in what he has done. Does he have an obligation to maintain monogamous values while representing and supporting high standards in other areas? Mr. Letterman's behavior makes Mr. Deggans uncomfortable, as it likely discomforts many others. Perhaps it would help if, again as Mr. Deggans suggests , more people dealt with why there are such ambivalent attitudes toward sex and sexual practices in the USA. None of it has anything to do with Mr. Letterman. He has not acted "abnormally".

[CD]

Letterman has money and power and is on television every day which makes him the equivalent of a rock star. He is an entertainer and frankly, he was just entertaining. I'm sure fidelity contributes to the amount of time it took him to get married. But I don't agree that the double standard exists because his likability, Eric, but because there is no hypocrisy here. Well, duh, he is in a position to have lots and lots of opportunities for whatever improprieties float his boat. And as long as consenting adults are involved, his private life is his private life. Roman Polanski's situation was NOT equal or consenting or among adults.

[Lila]

I was reminded of my first impressions of him when he first "burst" on the scene. Since I am pre-geezer, I remember these things. I thought a physically ugly person who had issues. Voila.

[Dave]

I just fail to see what the outrage is. Everyone was a willing participant, and they were grown single adults.

If this is the level of morality we expect from talk show hosts, I'd like to hear from Johnny Carson's seven wives and Larry King's eight.

What about the Bob Barker outrage?