Inspired By Letterman

[Admin]

No, this is NOT a confession of the "Creepy Things" I do.

I have never been a big fan of David Letterman. In the late night talk show race, I always preferred Jay Leno - though, admittedly, I am not really all that interested in either. Still, given a choice between the two, Leno was always my favorite.

Learning of the extortion attempt made against David Letterman earlier in the day (October 2, 2009), I was interested in catching his program that evening. I found it a fascinating, and disturbing, display.

First - in case you missed it, one of the production staff of the CBS program '48 Hours' was, allegedly, demanding $2 Million from Letterman or he would produce a screenplay disclosing Letterman's sexual dalliances with female employees of Letterman's staff. That producer was arrested yesterday (02 Oct) and Letterman was required to testify before the Grand Jury in telling his story before the arrest was made. The extortion attempt began about three (3) weeks ago when Letterman found a package in the back seat of his car at 6 AM in the morning.

Throughout Letterman's "little story," he made use of his considerable comedic talent and managed to deliver a very serious situation to an audience that, at first, clearly thought it was a part of his routine - and only mid-way into the "story" did some of them begin to realize he was describing a VERY serious crime.

The audience's nervous laughter at various times - particularly when he announced that he had, indeed, had sex with members of his staff, was telling in itself. Clearly Letterman has adoring fans.

Over the course of upcoming days and weeks, details of the 'back-story' are likely to emerge. Many questions remain unanswered. For example:

* Letterman recently married his live-in partner of more than 20 years, and they have a 5-year-old son together.
* When did the alleged sexual affairs occur? It seems certain Letterman was 'involved' with his now wife at the time of the affairs - but was he legally married at the time? And does that matter, given the depth and length of his 'live-in' relationship? It would *seem* a betrayal, in any case.
* What are Letterman's 'obligations' in terms of having sexual affairs with members of his staff? Note that he mentioned "women," in effect admitting it happened with multiple partners. Clearly he is in a position of power over someone who works for him. Does that make his actions heinous - as opposed to a casual affair in which there is no potential abuse of power?
* Since (presumably) none of the women complained to authorities, does that abrogate any abuse of power by Letterman?
* Since (presumably) this '48 Hours' producer learned of the affairs, SOMEONE must have 'talked' - so does that imply someone was unhappy about the outcome?
* What about the female staff members? Were any of them married at the time of the affairs? If so, does that reflect on Letterman?
* What of Letterman's judgment to engage in behaviors that would allow such extortion demands to be made in the first place? Would it not have been simple enough for someone with his public persona to find 'targets' for dalliances that do NOT work directly for him?

The questions go on and on. My guess is that Letterman is probably not a very nice person IRL, and I can easily imagine him taking advantage of his position of authority. Whether it rises to the level of abuse, who knows, but it has undoubtedly cast him in a much different and negative light.

HOWEVER - I am mightily impressed with Letterman's choice to immediately take the matter to authorities and his rapid response and public pronouncement. I believe he was sincere with his statements about protecting his family, and hope that includes his marriage. At this point, it is only speculation as to what his wife did, or did not, know about all this - and her reaction. In any case, from the public appearances, it seems that David Letterman stepped-up to his dalliances, and at least began the process of reconciliation. I hope so.

UPDATE from his program on October 5, 2009.

As might have been predicted, Letterman's revelation is now being hailed as "Phase 1 of the Scandal." He is now beginning to incur the backlash of his behaviors, and is apologizing to his staff, and to his wife, publicly.

Some have called for his 'sacking,' and there are more than a few who are, IMO appropriately, VERY disturbed by his behaviors and the implications.

I must admit, watching Letterman 'handle' this episode has left me with a rather sickly feeling in the pit of my gut. It is undisputed that his behaviors caused others significant pain. It is likely that it resulted from his position of power and authority and probably to some extent, wealth. He clearly exercised very poor judgment - on multiple occasions.

As I was impressed with his opening night "little story" and how he took the matter to authorities rapidly, I remain impressed with his position of not caving to pressures from those who were criminal in nature. I was particularly taken by his comment (paraphrasing), that "you can't be victimized by criminals..."

While the remainder of this post is not nearly so salacious as the Letterman incident, nor rising to the same level of criminal behavior, witnessing this Letterman incident inspired me in another direction - as follows:

Some of you may have noticed there were some small changes made to the RWD Terms of Service recently. Those changes were made as a result of receiving harassing emails from a former member of RWD. While the changes are not legally necessary, they should serve to emphasize the point that - a banned member of RWD who registers an account is acting in violation of the RWD Terms of Service in that they (the former/banned member) are intentionally penetrating the security measures established to protect International Relations' properties (including RWD) and its members.

On September 22, 2009, I received an email from an email account identified to a "Beresovsky_Smyth" who identified himself in the body of the email as RWD member "Silver Birch" and "msmoby_ru" - both are banned from RWD. In the email, he/she claimed that I am guilty of defaming him/her and demands a public apology and that if I accommodate his/her demands, there will be "NO "crowing"" (his/her words).

His/her email demand was repeated on September 29, 2009 and September 30, 2009, along with threats to send formal letters to my "home address."

With the repeated harassment and the threat of sending something to my "home address," I elected to obtain a legal review of the matter. It seemed clear to me that I had NOT defamed anyone, but I wanted a legal opinion, and I now have that. I have also notified authorities of the harassment, and the potential that this person claims to have my home address and intends to further harass me, and my family. Simply put, my family is precious to me, and I will not sit back and allow ANY threats that may affect them in any way.

The issue (such as it is) raised by Mr. Smyth, if filed in court, is likely to result in sanctions against Mr. Smyth, and there may be other penalties that accrue.

Separate from this legal 'issue,' I have decided to remove the topic in which the issue arose. My reasons for doing so are that it appears the entire episode may have been a ruse for someone to gain free publicity for a wannabe-competitor.

Maybe not, but in exercising the RWD prerogative to remove anything at any time, that topic is removed.

- Dan

[Boethius]

If "Mr. Smyth" is reading this, he should be aware that you can't defame someone who posts anonymously.

Perhaps "Mr. Smyth" can come back and post under his real name, giving you, as admin, his home address for purposes of verification. 

[KenC]

Dan,
If you could combine Leno's corniness with Letterman's wit and timing, they might equal the talent of Johnny Carson, but I doubt it.  Personally, I prefer Letterman as Leno seems to always be talking to a 4th grade audience.

That being said, I think Letterman handled his on air statement as well as it could ever be possible.  The humor he sprinkled in his statement only made fun of himself for being so incredibly stupid and never made light of his or the extortionists actions.

Additional information has come to light on this affair.  The woman involved was an assistant something or another, it was a consensual affair, the woman was "cheating" on her boyfriend (the extortionist) and he stole her diary to uncover it.  The affair happened last spring before Letterman married.  The woman left her boyfriend (that she lived with) and took a job as an attorney.

What happened between two consenting unmarried adults is their business.  How or if they explain this to their respective lovers is their personal cross to bear.  It simply put, is no ones business except the parties involved.

What really bothers me about this story is that our society has become a group of people that have become the world leaders in gossip mongering.  Who's screwing whom or if Britney is wearing panties or not is beginning to dominate our "news."  We sometimes know less about how many American soldiers died overseas but we have a full report on the where abouts of Paris Hilton.

Years ago, and yes I know I am showing my age, the news people would show some discreation on what was news and what was gossip.  That ethical code has long since eroded.  A great example of this is how much was made public when JFK was banging 2 interns at a time and what happened to Clinton.  BTW, we never heard the details about JFK until long after he was killed.  Neither was "right" in what they did mind you, but is it really our business to know?  I marvel at how other countries handle such things.  IIRC, at the funeral of a past French president, both his wife and mistress attended and nothing was said.

Done with my rant now.

As for Mr. Smyth, who cares?
KenC

[Boethius]

If you're the person being threatened, you likely care.

I think the 24 hour news cycle and the internet are the culprits in salacious news reporting.  The all news networks need something to fill all that time, and serious news, things like Frontline or 60 Minutes, take time and a lot of money to produce.

Do you remember when Larry King Live was predominantly a political programme? He used to interview heads of state, big impact politicians and prominent writers.  Now, the majority of his programming is celebrity driven, because that is what gets the ratings. 

I think the turning point was the OJ trial. 

[tim 360]

Nothing sells quite as well as dirty laundry, especially a celebrities dirties.

[Gator]

Dan,

Does Mr Smyth have compromising photos of you with Moderator Taz and other members of your "staff?"  Maybe you should use this opportunity to disclose everything. 

 

[KenC]

If you're the person being threatened, you likely care.

Point taken, but I don't think Dan should worry too much over this baseless threat//

I think the 24 hour news cycle and the internet are the culprits in salacious news reporting.  The all news networks need something to fill all that time, and serious news, things like Frontline or 60 Minutes, take time and a lot of money to produce

I wouldn't mind a filler piece here or there, but when some nonsense dominates the news over more important "news worthy" items, it is wrong.  It is shameful how little world news is reported in this country.  "Fill" with that.

Do you remember when Larry King Live was predominantly a political programme? He used to interview heads of state, big impact politicians and prominent writers.  Now, the majority of his programming is celebrity driven, because that is what gets the ratings.

  Of course you're right, it is all about the ratings.  Years ago (again aging myself) news programs were viewed as a public service and not a revenue source.  It is that change in attitude that has sensationalized the news

I think the turning point was the OJ trial. 

You again, are probably right.  That event actually did have some news value as two people did get killed.  Of course it was so overblown and dominated the news more than necessary for months.  I expect that a news worthy event concerning a celebrity would get more attention than a non-celebrity.  Take the kidnapping of Lindberg's baby for example.  But when the local news has only 20 mins of air time, 5 of which go to sports and another 3 to weather, the 12 remaining mins should not be wasted to report on Lindsy Lohan's latest rehab or whether Jon or Kate are together or not.  It is just a pet peeve of mine.
KenC