As Letterman mixed wisecracks with contrition, he said his wife, Regina Lasko, had been "horribly hurt by my behavior" and stated flat-out that those affairs "are in the past."Well of course they are in the past, by definition. This does not mean there will not be any more. However, if these affairs happened before Lasko and Letterman married, then he really doesn't have much to apologize to her about. Just because he was shacking up with her doesn't mean he was obligated not to have sex with anyone else. If he explicitly made such a promise, then he broke his promise, and that's about it. (Since Letterman doesn't publicly proclaim to follow Christ, I'm not applying Biblical standards.) He has more obligation to apologize to her for knocking her up out of wedlock and not marrying her until after the baby was born, shacking up with her for years. Even then, she consented to all of that, right?
During the hour, Letterman apologized to his staff, which, he said, had been subjected to "being browbeaten and humiliated" by reporters since his revelations.And then there are the sexual harassment and favoritism issues. If we're going to have government regulation of employer-employee relations, then sexual harassment needs to be treated seriously. We can't only apply it to unattractive conservative men who aren't wealthy or powerful.
Letterman, 62, began dating Lasko in 1986, and they have a son, Harry, who was born in November 2003. All the affairs took place before Letterman's marriage, said Tom Keaney, spokesman for Letterman's production company.So why the apologies - honestly? We expect a man to only sleep with a woman to whom he has no formal commitment? Why would it be okay for him to fornicate with her, but not other women?
But the CBS producer accused of blackmailing Letterman used pages from a former assistant's diary that described an affair with the "Late Show" host, a law enforcement official said Monday. The ex-assistant, Stephanie Birkitt, went to live with CBS News producer Robert Halderman, who found her diary describing her relationship with Letterman and used it to help blackmail him, the law enforcement official said Monday on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.Gotta love those physical diaries that some people keep around. She probably also told all of her girlfriends too, giving every detail imaginable. But the written word is something else – especially in the hands of a desperate and perhaps jealous guy.
For a celebrity the caliber of Hugh Grant, publicity - including speculation of career suicide - was unavoidable when he was arrested with a prostitute on Hollywood's Sunset Strip. But then he retreated to NBC's "The Tonight Show" to try to explain.What was to explain? It was easy for Hugh Grant to get sex. Guys like him go to prostitutes for one or both of the following reasons: 1. He wants the woman to go away and leave him alone after they have sex; 2. He has some sort of fetish, or perhaps a somewhat normal desire, that his girlfriend won't accommodate.
Back to Letterman – some people are calling on CBS to dump him. I don't know if they should or not. What would happen to the average CBS employee under the circumstances? But on the other hand, isn't Letterman more of an independent contractor? His actions are a liability for his own production company for sure – someone could easily sue for sexual harassment. It is probably a liability for CBS, too, but as the article says, ratings are way up because of this.
People screw up and have sex with people they shouldn't. Letterman is just the latest in a long line where it has gone public. I don't think he was doing right by his employees, and I also don't think he was doing right by Lasko, but that is more about things to which she willingly consented. Although I haven't committed these sins (sex with employees, "cheating" on a shack up), anyone who reads this blog knows I've done plenty of wrongs of my own.
The fact is, if CBS dropped his show, he would be able to go elsewhere easily. That gets me into my other topic, which I am keeping short. NBC already runs Leno at 10pm (Eastern/Pacific), eliminating five expensive hourlong dramas from the schedule. ABC could do the same by taking Letterman aboard. Some TV industry people blame Leno for reducing good TV jobs. But considering that even with five less evening hours for drama programming, NBC is still running SVU twice a week (showing the same episode twice), is Leno really to blame? Looks like NBC would have dropped at least five hours of drama with or without Leno.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please no "cussing" or profanities or your comment won't be published. I have to approve your comment before it appears. I won't reject your comment for disagreement - I actually welcome disagreement. But I will not allow libelous comments (which is my main reason for requiring approval) and please try to avoid profanities. Thanks!