David Letterman's Indefensible Conduct
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
In his Oct. 6 On TV column, Tom Shales put forward a kind of defense of David Letterman's sexual escapades with female staffers. Mr. Shales said that it's not as if Mr. Letterman is a politician or a religious leader and, since the sex was assumed to be consensual, it is "hardly some sort of threat to the public welfare." The implication seemed to be that we should let Mr. Letterman off the hook.
But should we? Does it matter that Mr. Letterman betrayed his wife's trust? Does it matter that a boss-employee relationship is always something a little more than "consenting adults" because of the power dynamic? Does it matter that Mr. Letterman is quite eager to ridicule others who are on the hook for warm-blooded indiscretions? Does it matter that Mr. Letterman has always been, in Mr. Shales's words, an "overgrown adolescent," occasionally leering at his female guests in ways that made me squirm a little?
I didn't think Rush Limbaugh deserved a pass on his hypocrisy when we learned that he was abusing drugs at the same time he was ranting about addicts and moral decay, and I don't think we should give Mr. Letterman a pass now. In both cases, we should at least show enough respect and compassion to say, "Get some help. Do it privately, do it seriously and do it now."
RALPH HUTCHISON
Knoxville, Tenn.
