Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeViewers ultimately will judge Letterman’s fate if CBS does not
October 5, 2009 —
I’ve never heard David Letterman’s name in anyone’s top ten list of role models. And I don’t believe that will change any time soon, given Letterman’s announcement on Thursday night’s Late Night.
Letterman admitted to having affairs with members of his staff and to allegedly being blackmailed by Robert Halderman.
“I have had sex with women who work on this show,” said Letterman, unapologetically. Letterman’s comments were a mix of comedy and sarcasm: “If you know anything about me, I am just a towering mass of Lutheran Midwestern guilt.”
By addressing the affairs along with the blackmail scheme, Letterman painted himself as a victim along with the staffers involved in the workplace affairs. “I feel like I need to protect these people,” said Letterman. “I need to certainly protect my family. I need to protect myself – hope to protect my job – and the friends, everybody that has been very supportive through this.”
Well, not everyone is supportive. The public response to Letterman’s announcement ranges from laughter and applause, as witnessed in Thursdays Late Night audience, to bloggers’ and news readers’ calls for him to be fired by CBS. Now the Los Angeles Times is asking if the host should get canned.
Intense public reactions to Letterman’s comments are nothing new. Just last June, protesters called for CBS to fire the host after a controversial monologue joke he made about Sara Palin’s daughter getting “knocked up” by Alex Rodriguez at a professional basketball game. Now, as then, I do not believe that CBS should fire Letterman from hosting Late Night because of his behavior.
I’m not defending Letterman, statutory rape jokes or sexual harassers – I believe that Letterman’s behavior is reprehensible, especially when it comes to cheating on his wife. Letterman should be less worried about his job and more concerned with the compromised integrity of the involved staff members. I believe that the comic delivery of his announcement was in poor taste as well. Letterman’s comments about the infidelity of Clinton, Edwards and Spitzer suddenly seem ironic. But it’s not my place to determine whether he can still effectively perform the duties of his job.
Viewers and sponsors, operating as individuals in the free market, can make that decision more effectively than a handful of CBS executives. The Late Night audience (i.e., Letterman’s customers) will have to decide whether to keep tuning in. If enough of Letterman’s viewership is sufficiently offended by his behavior to change the channel, the ratings will drop. (Despite controversies such as this one raising Letterman’s ratings in the short term, his show consistently rates lower than other late night guest shows in the same time slot.)
Letterman could lose sponsorship, forcing him to shoulder the production costs of Late Night. Can he hold up his Worldwide Pants production company all by himself? Offended sponsors may even decide to pull their support for Letterman on their own, without public initiative, just to prevent their association with a spokesman who is not as family friendly as he was when his show began. These individual moral and social judgments will determine Letterman’s Late Night fate. No action is required by CBS.
Unless CBS deems Letterman’s behavior as sexual harassment and has a zero tolerance policy regarding that behavior, it should keep him on the air. If the women involved in the affairs chose to sue CBS for sexual harassment, the network will likely settle. If Letterman’s services to Late Night are determined to be worth more than the money lost in the suits, he will likely remain as host.
I’m not a Letterman viewer, and his latest antics don’t compel me to tune in. But I don’t believe CBS should fire him unless he is rejected by his viewers or sponsors. Their opinion of his product should ultimately decide whether he stays at Late Night.