Why Is David Letterman's Love Life Anyone's Business?

ABC News has a headline, Sex Scandal Sheds Light on David Letterman's Love Life. Why doesn't that read "Extortion Scandal Sheds Light on Letterman's Love Life?"

What did Letterman do wrong? Since when it is illegal or immoral to have sex with someone you work with, or even someone who works for you? Has our Nanny State mentality sunk to the level where it is believed that all romantic or sexual relationships in the workplace are a form of sexual harassment?

The story here is that someone who worked for the CBS network allegedly tried to extort money from Letterman and got caught on tape and taking a marked check. [More...]

Letterman's romantic escapades and relationships should remain his business. He wasn't even married when they happened. He has nothing to apologize for or explain. It's those with a voyeuristic interest in Letterman's dalliances that should be ashamed.

At least his ratings will go through the ceiling as the public tunes in to observe and speculate on his every word and gesture.

< Republicans Say New Amendment to HCR Will Raise Medicare Drug Premiums | 10th Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Fugitives' Case Against BATF Agents For Illegal Wiretapping >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:36:44 PM EST
    You have taken tongue-in-cheek redundancy to its zenith.

    It IS Someome's Business (none / 0) (#89)
    by msaroff on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:21:09 PM EST
    And their names are Leno, O'Brien, Stewart, and maybe Colbert.

    It's not personal, it's just business.

    They'd make jokes about it if the person was a diaper wearing senator....It's their job


    Of course. (none / 0) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:49:13 PM EST
    Didn't I say that?

    Because the boss is in a power (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:38:17 PM EST
    position vs the employee?? At least that is what the companies I worked for said... I think they got that from NOW.

    I'm with Jim on this one (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:09:11 PM EST
    It matters because he is the boss. He had sex with women who worked FOR him. In a lot of places that gets the boss fired and sometimes gets the company sued.

    As to his former girlfriend, now wife-- that is between the two of them and nobody elses business.


    What places are those? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    Sexual harassment is not a charge that has been made here.

    The position is that it doesn't have to (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    be charged.

    The actions speak for themselves.


    The actions do not amount (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:45:46 PM EST
    to sexual harassment.

    If that is all you have, then you have no basis for alleging sexual harassment/


    I am not alleging anything (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:11:30 PM EST
    My point was made in my first comment. I repeat and won't come back.

    Sex between employee and boss in most companies I know of has long been a no no based on the power relationship. This was also the position of NOW.

    The thing speaks for itself.


    I do not know what NOW's position is (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:46:39 PM EST
    But if it is that, that seems an absurd position to me.

    Back in the late '60s-early '70s (none / 0) (#155)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    I worked for a huge company that had the rule in place at a much stricter level. Bosses could not so much as have lunch with an employee. Had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with potential harrassment problems. It had to do with the supervisor/boss not putting themselves in a position where they might inadvertently say something that the company thought to be confidential or only for management to know.

    BTD, i assume employment law (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 05:08:17 AM EST
    isn't your forte', and you've not had occasion recently to sit through a sexual harrasment seminar:

    The actions do not amount
    to sexual harassment.If that is all you have, then you have no basis for alleging sexual harassment.

    the party engaged in the act does not, her/himself, need to make any claim whatsoever, for it to be a potential liability to the employer.

    if another employ can show that, as a result of the activity, they were wrongfully denied advancement/raise, etc, then they can seek a judgment against the employer.

    it's kind of like indirect harrasment.


    You are wrong on this (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:06:42 AM EST
    I have a working familiarity with the area of law and you are just wrong.

    Hostile workplace environment. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    Zero tolerance yada yada. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:59:27 PM EST
    But didn't Letterman bring this to the attention of his viewers?  

    Zero tolerance for what? (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    Office "romance?" Really? Where?

    As for Letterman bringing it to our attention, obviously he was preempting the story.

    A very shrewd move imo.

    No breaking TMZ stories.


    Soooo many mandatory yearly seminars re (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    zero tolerance for sexual harassment for gov't employees.  Never saw it implemented though.  

    Sometimes... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    ...two adults do come to a understanding that they would like to see each other outside of work.  Sometimes it is about normal, everyday mutual attraction and not harassment.  There is a difference.

    Even government workers are human, it does happen.  


    Don't disagree w/your premise. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:39:02 PM EST
    Yet (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:29:17 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#74)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 10:13:52 PM EST
    I certainly know of companies that have codes of conduct that say to avoid manager-subordinate relationship. The reason is obvious: if one person is in a position of power, this power can be abused in that relationship, with the other person being afraid to resist for fear of repercussions in the work place.

    However. Just because this danger exists, doesn't mean that it always will happen. And it also doesn't mean that there is any evidence that Letterman abused his power.

    There's an article in People Magazine (yes, I know.. but I'm just quoting the people they quote) that says:

    Another close source, who has a long history with the Late Show, says that the program's grueling schedule - 15-hour workdays are typical - helped breed inter-office hookups.

    "In politics it's the same thing," says the source. "People who live it, eat it, breathe it ... [It's] not some sort of predatory, 'Let's hire beautiful women so we can feast on them' kind of thing. That's just not the way it works."

    The former staffer adds of Letterman, "He never acted inappropriate with any of the female staff. He was very kind, and I never recall anyone saying anything at all bad about him."

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:41:51 PM EST
    He's supposedly been dating and/or living with the same woman since 1989? or is it 1987 (Regina Lazko).  It's the same situation as if a married man had sex with co-workers.  

    Letterman essentially cheated on his wife.  He should have separated from her if he didn't want to remain faithful.  He's a cheat.  It's immoral if you care about the woman who supposedly committed to him.

    But it isn't our business.

    And it's your business because? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:51:07 PM EST
    He's not running for public office, he's an entertainer. What's the public interest in whether he "was faithful" to his girlfriend or the mother of his child? What if they had an agreed-upon open relationship?

    The morality police need to take a deep breath and fade back into their couches -- or whatever they sit in when they watch tv.


    Actually, Letterman made it (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:57:20 PM EST
    everyone's business when he detailed what actions gave the extortionist something he might want kept quiet.

    Letterman is an entertainer who wants us to buy the products his advertisers sell so he can retain his multi-million dollar income.

    I'm really doubting the producer was stupid enough to think he'd just get the $2M payoff and all would be done, so I do think there's more to come out on this story. I just hope it isn't more on the affairs of this Late Night host.


    If he has a decent lawyer (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    I suspect nothing much more will be coming from Halderman.

    Probably not (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    but, he could have just been the opening act for the women.

    Shargel is his lawyer (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    Pretty good by reputation at least.

    Shargel is one of the best (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 10:41:16 PM EST
    anywhere. And a nice guy.

    Can I take this a step further? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:13:35 PM EST
    At least at this site, we don't dwell on people's private lives, not even pols.

    No John Ensign, no Mark Sanford, no nobody.

    But I would be remiss to note that you and I disagreed on some aspects of the coverage of Sarah Palin's life. But no need to rehash that disagreement.


    I also discussed John Edwards (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    and Rielle Hunter plenty. Edwards and Palin were  politicians seeking our vote. I think there's a big difference between them and entertainers.

    I also wrote about every development in Sen. Larry Craig's bathroom case.

    I don't have a policy against discussing Ensign or Sanford, I just have no interest in them.  One's a southern governor and the other is a Senator from Nevada. Affairs generally are not a concern of mine -- it would take a criminal investigation to pique my interest.

    Edwards' mattered because he could have cost the Dems the election had he gotten the nomination and it came out during the election. And, had he dropped out in Iowa when he realized the media knew about it, the primary process could have turned out differently.

    Palin trotted out her daughter's boyfriend at the RNC, making that relationship fair game. And she was running for VP.

    But, your right, let's keep this to Letterman.


    Why are you posting about Letterman (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:01:39 PM EST

    because it's in the news (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 10:45:52 PM EST
    and I'm not liking the media insinuations he did something improper. The focus should be on the extortion plot not his private life.

    Obviously, I'm writing about it because I'm interested in it. A prominent entertainer may be the victim of a crime and it's alleged the perpertrator works for the same network. Meanwhile, the media and public want to talk about his sex life. Fascinating.


    To me, it is pretty difficult to separate (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:43:40 PM EST
    the alleged extortion from Letterman's sex life given the basis of the attempted extortion.  Still doesn't make me care about Letterman's sex life though.  

    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    I think we have a discrepancy in our views then.

    On Craig, he was charged with a crime - a stupid law imo, and as I recall, you mostly wrote about the legal machinations as opposed to what the underlying implications regarding Craig's sexual orientation.

    In addition, Craig, as a lawmaker, seemed to be steeped in hypocrisy and in an important way - his opposition to gay rights.

    In short, this is your basic policy - "it would take a criminal investigation to pique my interest."


    Or a certain politician (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:59:58 PM EST
    to "trot out her teenage daughter".

    It is a matter of record (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    that I disagreed with that assessment.

    You, absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:19:50 PM EST
    I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

    Ensign is now more than "just a Senator" (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:51:19 AM EST
    He's now under investigation from the Senate Ethics Committee - which DOES affect everybody, as those people will have their time consumed with this as opposed to something that will help everybody else.  Not that I think it shouldn't be investigated.

    The Senate Ethics Committee is investigating Sen. John Ensign, and allegations of improper conduct stemming from an affair with the wife of a former aide.

    "Whenever allegations of improper conduct are brought to the attention of the Senate Ethics Committee, we open a preliminary inquiry," committee spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz told CNN.

    But, in keeping with the committee's tradition of secrecy, Ravitz went on to say that the "ethics committee doesn't comment on ongoing investigations."

    Because of the tight lipped nature of the ethics panel, it is unclear exactly what the Ethics Committee is probing.

    Oh (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:42:25 PM EST
    And he had a child with Regina in the last 5 years.

    I think the last line of your comment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:15:12 PM EST
    is Jeralyn's point.

    Maybe you should ask Letterman why (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    he made it the public's business, why he thought he needed to publicly admit to having s-x with women who worked for him.

    There was an extortion attempt, he reported it, testified to a grand jury - all of which he should have done - and then he blurted it all out on his show.  Was he taking control of the media before it was all over TMZ and every other gossipy media outlet?  Well, maybe so.

    I just can't help but wonder if his ratings had anything to do with this: if it's going to be out there, might as well benefit as much as possible, right?

    The ratings reason is unlikely. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:15:09 PM EST
    He was already well ahead of Conan and consistently so apparently.

    But it was smart PR, since the story was going to come out anyway, to manage the situation as quickly as possible by telling his side of the story in his own semi-humorous and self-deflating way.

    And besides concerns about his family and the gossip mill, there was a not unreasonable concern that the story could get out of hand and harm his good standing with CBS management.


    No maybe about it (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    That's exactly what he was doing.

    No scoops now are there?


    He sure had a grand old time (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by domer5000 on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 10:54:39 PM EST
    joking about Bill Clinton's escapade

    Didn't Letterman discuss his sexual (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    relationship on his  "Late Night" show last night?  Announcements to TV audiences are not exactly conducive to keeping things private.

    Yes, he did (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:15:57 PM EST
    knowing that they were going to nab the guy, he chose to make it public first, in his own way.

    I'm just curious why it's being called a "sex scandal" and why the media and public think his sex life is the story rather than the allegedly criminal extortion plot. I don't see the signficance of the reason for the extortion.


    There is no sex scandal (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:18:52 PM EST
    Though that seems to upset people, including commenters here.

    There is an accusation of an extortion scheme.

    Hate to break to the the moralists, no one cares about David Letterman's sex life. I doubt this story survives 2 days.


    that's just what I'm saying (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:37:27 PM EST
    I'm critiquing the arm chair moralists. And the media that plays to them by headlining this as a sex scandal instead of an extortion plot.

    That's what I understood (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:41:19 PM EST
    you to be saying.

    Let me clarify my position (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:48:26 PM EST
    I do not care about Letterman's sex life. I agree the ABC headline is misleading at best. The story is the extortion, not the sex. David's sex life should be of importance only to him, his wife and his other sexual partners. Since I am none of those people, it does not matter to me.

    As I said above, the only aspect of this that concerns other people in any way is the whole boss having sex with subordinates aspect and how that may have affected people's careers and jobs. As far as I know, none of the employees of Letterman's company have filed such complaints.


    Wait for it (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:41:48 PM EST
    I would bet money there will be at least one such complaint coming shortly.  The guy who tried to extort the money is apparently romantically involved now with one of the women in question.  The terms of the extortion itself may well have been the threat that this woman might file suit.  Unless she knew nothing about this, which seems unlikely since she's the most likely source of the info to begin with, it would certainly appear she has very hard feelings.

    Nice speculation but... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Shawn on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 02:15:57 AM EST
    "News reports said Halderman was in financial straits, paying alimony to one of two ex-wives, and had been living in Norwalk, Connecticut, in a relationship with Letterman's former personal assistant, Stephanie Birkitt, a onetime staffer of 48 Hours, who allegedly had been one of Letterman's workplace lovers. Birkitt, 34 years old, is said to have broken up with Halderman several weeks ago, and is devastated by the scandal."


    All of the reports I've read say that the "info" was copied from Birkett's diary.


    Well, if you look at it from the (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    workplace angle, maybe there's something there that's not so innocuous.

    I worked for a number of years with an attorney whom I truly respected for his intelligence and intellect - he was, in most respects, just a really good guy - I liked him and considered him a work friend.

    But, somewhere along the line, some of the things he said to me began to be inappropriate, and I became very uncomfortable.  Even though I considered him something of a friend, he was still my superior, still had power over me, and so I struggled with how to handle it.

    I ended up speaking with someone in my firm who I knew would handle it discreetly and diplomatically and - I hoped - allow this attorney and I to continue to work together.  I was right: she sppke to him, he came to me and apologized and things went back to "normal."

    S-x - and behavior that never gets that far - in the workplace is not always "nobody else's business;" it's not necessarily about morals or prudishness, but about observing the boundaries that exist to prevent someone with power to intimidate or manipulate someone who doesn't have power because she is afraid for her job.

    I'm not sure whether someone who has not been in a situation like that has any room to judge.


    Sheer speculation (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:58:48 PM EST
    "But, somewhere along the line, some of the things he said to me began to be inappropriate, and I became very uncomfortable.  Even though I considered him something of a friend, he was still my superior, still had power over me, and so I struggled with how to handle it."

    There is no allegation of anything like that here.

    When that gets alleged, then let's talk.


    I didn't intend to suggest that anything (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:17:32 PM EST
    like that had been alleged; my point was directed more at those who take the position that there is never anything wrong with s-x in the workplace.

    no one said never (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 10:47:58 PM EST
    the problem is with people who say always. Or try to project what happened to them on people they know nothing about other than seeing them on the tee-vee.

    Letterman himself spilled the beans, (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:02:18 PM EST
    so he opened the door for people to have opinions about what he, himself, admits to having done.

    I'm not projecting what happened to me onto someone I do not know - I don't even watch Letterman, for heaven's sake - I related what happened to me because I find it offensive for someone else who doesn't know Letterman to assume that whatever sexual relationships he had were benign for the sole reason that they were not illegal. And to take others to task and brand them moralists because they have some experience with the toxicity that can be created when someone in a position of power or authority crosses a line.


    isn't that like the presumption of guilt? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:16:23 PM EST
    Why should we even think something might be nefarious with no evidence. Why not assume it's benign? We live in a society that treasures the presumption of innocence.

    Jeralyn, it's really not possible (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:48:44 PM EST
    for this kind of relationship not to badly poison the workplace.  Maybe there are times when it's kept so secret that nobody knows, but most of the time people do know.  Even if the relationship between boss and subordinate is wholly consensual in every possible emotional/psychological way, what it does to male/female working relationships is horrible, and the suspicions of favoritism run rampant and destroy trust.

    Companies and organizations don't ban these relationships because they're considered immoral but because of the terrible impact on the workplace that they always have.  I've been through two of them (as essentially a bystander), one wholly consensual and one a classic sexual harassment situation, and both nearly destroyed the organizations in which they happened.


    I always thought the state and courts (none / 0) (#140)
    by nyjets on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:48:14 AM EST
    I always thought that it was the state and courts who assumed a person was innocent until proven guilty. An individual person can believe whatever they want.
    If you are the type of person who believes that people are inheritly lazy, selfish, and dishonest,you are going to believe that someone is quilty until proven innocent.

    Well, if everyone were to follow (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 02:59:33 PM EST
    the theory of presumption of innocent, how would the law ever succeed in arresting or indicting anyone? And, why is Letterman the one being defended right now? Isn't he supposed to be the victim? :)

    Oh really? How about acquainting (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:26:19 PM EST
    oneself with the facts, so far as available?  Not that most jurors, on voir dire, will admit they have any opinion whatsoever as to whether the person about to be tried did anything against the law.

    If no one cares about it then why are we (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:27:11 PM EST
    discussing it? I personally dislike Letterman but could care less who he has had sex with the caveat  it was consensual( and I don't hear any evidence otherwise) and they both were of the age of consent (and I'm assuming they were.) I don't get the exhibitionism or the voyeurism on the part of the media or Letterman. While I consider it poor form for a boss to sleep with a subordinate, he certainly isn't the first to exercise that kind of bad judgment.

    well geez jeralyn, (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 05:12:16 AM EST
    I'm just curious why it's being called a "sex scandal"

    it's because anything to do with sex in this country is, by definition (don't ask who came up with the definition), a "scandal".

    or so i've heard.


    Jeralyn asks this question (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:16:55 PM EST
    "ABC News has a headline, Sex Scandal Sheds Light on David Letterman's Love Life. Why doesn't that read "Extortion Scandal Sheds Light on Letterman's Love Life?""

    What's your answer to the question? The point being if there were no extortion scheme, we would not be talking about this.


    ABC would probably be better able (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:32:16 PM EST
    than I to answer the question since they wrote the headline.

    Accuracy, especially in headlines, is not and has not been exactly a strong point with the media. They tend to pick them based on what will generate the most interest rather than sticking to the exact truth. So if you want me to make a guess, that would be it.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    So you agree with Jeralyn's critique.

    I agree the headline was meant to (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    titillate rather than be totally honest. That is SOP for all forms of media. Even blogs use this technique.

    If I had my way, the sexual conduct of celebrities including politicians would be confined to the pages of tabloids like The National Enquirer and the media including blogs would focus on providing the truth on what is going on issues that have real impact.

    Infotainment seems to garner more interest with all forms of media than anything else. I would bet that most people know more about Michael Jackson's death than they do about any issue before Congress. So I doubt that the media will change anytime soon.


    Yes we "titilllate" about HCR (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:03:06 PM EST
    not private lives and sex.

    I agree you do not post (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:09:17 PM EST
    on private lives and sex.

    "We"? (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:08:00 PM EST
    The answer (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jbindc on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 06:54:15 AM EST
    "Because it will get more people's attention, more people will read the story, so we will have more hits on our website, and more people will tune into ABC News."

    Please (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by blogtopus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:30:21 PM EST
    Will the 'What about the Family' moralists realize that this all came out to his family LONG before he made it public. So that's not the reason.

    So, why are people so upset? That he publicly outed himself to disarm the blackmailers and future pearl-clutchers in the media?Do we really have that many pearl-clutchers in TalkLeft readership? [Gasps, falls on fainting couch]

    Many end in (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    happy marriages as well.

    Businesses generally (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:35:29 PM EST
    aren't paying you to play Russian Roulette with their assets(and yes they consider human resources they are paying for assets.) Generally speaking that is why companies don't want superiors and subordinates fraternizing(and yes a lot of companies, including the military, find it grounds for disciplinary action and/or discharge.)

    Link? (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:56:37 PM EST
    Are my voyeuristic interest in dalliances (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:53:07 PM EST
    really something to be ashamed of? I never thought of it that way, but maybe you're right. But I can't help it - I'm interested in people's love lives. Not judgmental about it, just interested.

    With the possible exception of that point, I agree with you Jeralyn. The story is that this guy thought he could extort money from Letterman, and got caught in his own trap. 'Letterman had premarital sex' is not exactly a news flash.

    I didn't hear him tell what the (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:13:08 PM EST
    timeline was. We don't really know if it was all premarital, do we?

    People use all kinds of things to judge who they want to spend their time with, and/or their money on. The moral makeup of a person is important to some. As long as they don't go making it up, when they learn the truth of a person, they do have the right to opinionate on it.

    What I object to is the making it up, or twisting the facts that so many do.


    He had sex with multiple (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:56:38 PM EST
    employees in the last six months since he was married?

    In any case, he's been in a supposedly committed relationship with the woman he married since way back in the late '80s, and had a child with her a couple years ago.  So whether he was technically married or not seems to me the very least relevant aspect of any of this.


    :) It's not impossible (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    that he had multiple backstage partners since he got married...at least, not if the way he characterized the encounters is true. But, that sure wasn't the key point in my comment.

    One of his partners apparently thought whatever her relationship with him was merited her a law degree at his expense.

    My point, though, is that we all have our own method of deciding who we will give our time and money to. Letterman said he feared for his job because of this....probably because it comes too close behind his most recent disgusting choice, which also cost him some sponsors and viewers.

    I don't think the man deserves defending. But, his cheating on his girlfriend is not at the top of the list of reasons for me. She let him string her along for how many years? You think his being a cad comes as a surprise?


    Didn't watch Letterman tell his (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:13:28 PM EST
    viewing audience about his sex life.  That being sd., does remind me a whole bunch of Gov. Paterson's over-revelations.  

    I gather that Catherine McKinnon (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    is not regular reading among lawyers here.  Interesting, since her works are among those most-cited in legal journals!

    Reading is not always agreeing (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:43:32 PM EST
    But reading her and others (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:59:07 PM EST
    and ye olde EEOC rulings easily answers the question in this post.  

    Want to cite an EEOC ruling (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 10:01:57 PM EST
    on that? I disagree with you.

    One of my faves is Big Vanilla! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:04:13 PM EST
    but there are so many, this is silly.  

    Catharine MacKinnon (none / 0) (#68)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    was a professor of mine in law school, in fact, and her books are still sitting right here on my shelf.  I will never forget her take on abortion: "Of course it's a life.  That's why it's got to be stopped!"

    Thx for the cx (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:06:54 PM EST
    I always forget that she's a Catharine like Beecher, not a Catherine like the Great.

    Btw, I have problems with McKinnon re abortion -- but she pegged it on the workplace.  Whatever, she makes us think.  That would have been a good course.


    Expectations (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:43:48 PM EST
    I don't care one way or another about whatever consensual human relationships in which Letterman has been or is engaged.  It should not be surprising, tho, that anyone voluntarily in the public eye--elected official or showman--gets inordinate and even garrulous scrutiny. As for Letterman: He has certainly made sport and lots of exceptionally harsh jokes about others involved in similar situations. Life does have a way of hitting us in the butt sometimes with all the glass houses and whatnot.

    Lettermen's lawyer met with the accused (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:19:09 PM EST
    plotter and taped the calls. Letterman didn't meet with him.

    In the letter he left in Letterman's car, Halderman said he needed to "make a large chunk of money" and included a one-page screenplay treatment describing how the "Late Show" host would have a "ruined reputation" after he exposed details of the comic's private life. He demanded that Letterman call him by 8 a.m. to strike a deal.

    Instead, the comic called his attorney, who met with Halderman on Sept. 15. At that time, the CBS producer demanded $2 million to keep quiet. In coordination with the Manhattan district attorney's office, the attorney held two more meetings with Halderman at the Jumeirah Essex House, a posh New York hotel, and secretly taped his demands.

    Why should Letterman's Love Life Matter? (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Doc Rock on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:20:00 PM EST
    In many cases, I'd agree with this sentiment; however, when one has made a very good living holding others' peccadilloes up for ridicule, one should expect no less for himself in much the became way that Limbaugh's drug abuse came into sharp focus because of his hypocritical blatherings.

    Letterman's conduct didn't violate company policy (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:20:36 PM EST
    LA Times:

    A spokesman for Worldwide Pants, Letterman's production company, said the company's sexual harassment policy did not prohibit sexual relationships between managers and employees.

    "We have a written policy in our employee manual that covers harassment," the spokesman said in a statement. "It is circulated to every employee every year. Dave is not in violation of our policy and no one has ever raised a complaint against him."

    Hypothetically, others in the workplace (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:31:51 PM EST
    may claim a hostile work environment even though the claimant was not the direct recipient of sexual harassment.

    And about male others in that workplace (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:45:05 PM EST
    I always was struck by talking with a male former student of a prof who was found to have had sex with female students in a quid pro quo for good grades.  The male student said he had worked so hard in the class but somehow never could get an A from that prof.  And now, he said, he knew why.  



    I wonder if their (none / 0) (#106)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:53:37 PM EST
    policy has etiquette on how to tell your boss that you want a strictly professional relationship or how to tell him that you no longer wish to sleep with him? It would make for some seriously awkward work moments to have to turn your boss down after he hits on you and hints he wants more than a professional relationship.

    Interesting that (none / 0) (#99)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    they cover employee/ employer dating in their sexual harassment policy. It's almost like they are daring someone to file for hostile work environment.

    Given that Letterman owns the company, I guess (none / 0) (#101)
    by tigercourse on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:46:50 PM EST
    he knew he would be having sex with employees, and wanted to have all his bases covered.

    I've felt he was icky for (none / 0) (#107)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:55:30 PM EST
    awhile but this pretty much cements it for me. Ewwwwwwwww.

    They didn't say that (none / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:56:24 PM EST
    they covered employer-employee relationships.  They said they had a sexual harassment policy.  Most companies do.

    That said, having sex with a subordinate is just begging for trouble.  They could file suit at any time.

    When I was in the corporate world, the policy was typically that people shouldn't even compliment others' clothing, new hair style or anything to avoid any appearance of impropriety.


    That's why I always tell people at the office, (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by tigercourse on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:00:21 AM EST
    "man Jane/Jim, you sure look terrible today". Can't be too careful.

    how sad (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:21:20 AM EST
    almost like how teachers are afraid to hug little kids for fear of being accused of improper touching. The provinical mentality that prevails in this country is really something.

    Meh (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by cawaltz on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:55:59 AM EST
    It's even sadder if you are a young woman in a workplace that has to put up with unwelcome advances because you are worried that if you don't it would cost you your livelihood. While from what I have read the young woman who Halderman was dating seemed quite happy and even goes so far to point out Letterman paid for her law school, the fact remains that bosses decide on performance evals, provide opportunities for advancement, and give wage raises and providing the perception of bias(you'd be hard pressed to argue that you don't prefer someone you date) is a bad idea from a business standpoint.

    Seems there were special favors, then (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:31:39 AM EST
    the young woman who Halderman was dating seemed quite happy and even goes so far to point out Letterman paid for her law school

    This open a door for those women he did not have an affair with to request the value of a law degree?


    Seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:05:07 AM EST
    that it would have to be an employment-related benefit for such an argument to work.

    If you get a promotion by sleeping with the boss, the other employees have a gripe.  If you get a diamond ring, not so much.


    My "comment" was a question, and now (none / 0) (#139)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:12:52 AM EST
    I have a follow-up.

    Would it matter if the law school was paid for out of company funds rather than his personal account?

    DARK AVENGER: Please note these are questions and your ratings are inappropriate.


    Few people can twist the meaning of (none / 0) (#154)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    words like you can. Get a headache trying to come up with that one?

    BTW - what in the world does "inputing" mean?


    LOL - You should take your own advice (none / 0) (#166)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:08:57 PM EST
    on that. Nothing there.

    I think I know what you're trying to say, but your spelling is so far off that you also don't know how to pronounce the word. If you manage to find it in your research, you'll notice that you are just enough off on the meaning to have used it incorrectly, as well. But, the tone of your accusation indicates my guess is probably correct.


    No (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    but it does again confirm for both men and women what they all should have learned as a basic rule of life... Having a relationship with a rich man (or woman) is generally better to your immediate financial well-being than an affair with an unemployed broken down greatly in debt individual. To clarify, the rule is often viewed as "it's just as easy to marry a rich man or woman as a poor one". This misspoken faux rule is mathematically wrong.

    Since Letterman's Executive Producer (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 02:16:43 AM EST
    Barbara Gaines is a lesbian, we know the reason she was promoted to management can't be because she was his lover.

    Precluding one (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by cawaltz on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:26:19 AM EST
    individual would not necessarily change the perception of bias. I don't know or care to know about Letterman's business and sexual relationships but from a business perspective it's an ignorant position that a person is going to compartmentalize relationships(at work we are associates but outside the workspace we are lovers) particularly when your argument for forming those relationships to begin with is that you worked together for long hours.

    Litigation prone society. (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:29:44 AM EST
    "Provincial"? That's the meme isn't it? (none / 0) (#152)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    Big discussion in our sexual harassment (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:59:45 PM EST
    training one year.  May a female supervisor compliment a male supervisee on his tie?  Depends.  But, one African American female legal secretary volunteered that she dislikes anyone commenting on her clothing.

    Here's the (none / 0) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:02:29 AM EST
    EEOC policy:


    Sexual harassment by definition does not include consensual sex, which is likely why there was no policy prohibiting consensual sex.

    That said, at any point Stephanie, or whoever could file suit.  Certainly, Mr. Letterman was walking a pretty precarious slope.


    Well (none / 0) (#114)
    by cawaltz on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:04:14 AM EST
    according to what Jeralyn wrote the policy makes allowances for subordinates and superiors to engage in outside relationships. As tigercourse pointed out the company is owned by Letterman so he probably was covering his bases should the opportunity avail itself. It's icky policy because I daresay as a subordinate that it wouldn't cross someone's mind that if they said no they wouldn't have a job.

    of course it isn't a scandal. (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 05:17:00 AM EST
    letterman just did what any good attorney would do, negate the bad stuff about your witness, by bringing it out yourself. those people who are going to be scandalized don't watch his show anyway.

    to my knowledge, mr. letterman has never held himself out to be a paragon of virtue, he's not a legislator, and this all appears to have occured when he was still single.

    i'd say his public announcement, on his own show, is a testament to how smart he is. probably helps explain why he's been so successful over the years.

    and no, i have no interest at all in mr. letterman's (or any other celebrity's/politician's) sex life.

    Has anyone said what CBS' policy is? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by allimom99 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    Letterman's company may not have rules about this, but it's quite possible that CBS DOES. It could be a firing offense, depending on that. I couldn't care less about his personal life, but the perception of favoritism arising from these situations is toxic in a workplace.

    Speaking as someone who was passed over for promotion in favor of a regional director's lover, it's VERY clear why these policies exist.

    lots of judgement i see around (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    daves behavior.  Takes two to tango, no?

    I am trying to think of a more useless thread in TL history and I cannot.

    Grown ups have sex.  Sometimes with co-workers.  Sometimes with staff members.  Consensual sex is legal in most states, extortion is not.

    Can we have a thread dedicated to our own misdeeds?  We can all air out all of the immoral crap we have done in our lives.  Being that we blog together it should be fair game as we are in the "public domain" so to speak.

    It will not be long before people start researching each other on blogs and posting dirty laundry......

    Jumping the shark.....

    I have no interest whatsoever in ANY (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:57:15 PM EST
    aspect of Letterman's life, let alone his so-called "love life".

    I have a related question, to Jeralyn's (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Peter G on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:42:30 PM EST
    query about "Letterman's Love Life" ... to wit:  What's love got to do with it?  I doubt very much that this rich and powerful man's sexual intimacy with any of his female subordinates had anything to do with love at all.

    So what is your point of disagreement (none / 0) (#161)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:02:24 AM EST
    with my comment Peter G?

    None (4.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    Is a "reply" required to express a disagreement? I hadn't thought so. My comment was triggered by the aspect of yours that put the "scare quotes" around TL's headline mentioning Letterman's "love life."  That made me realize that the way that expression is used in this context had been bothering me.  As far as what aspect of someone else's life you may or may not be interested it, how could anyone disagree with that?  That's entirely up to you.

    It sounds like Letterman didn't (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:48:18 PM EST
    hesitate to out the extortion.  I would guess that he self-outed to his now wife long ago.

    Not everyone cares: (none / 0) (#7)
    by steviez314 on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 06:54:19 PM EST
    "Sometimes in life you want to just keep walking," Noonan said, adding, "Sometimes, I think, just keep walking.... Some of life just has to be mysterious."

    Oh, wait!  She wasn't talking about this.

    He put it in the public sphere (none / 0) (#19)
    by abdiel on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:19:40 PM EST
    Nobody pried into it, except for the extortionist.  If he's going to declare on national television that he's had sexual affairs with his staff, then it's fair game.  What makes it exceptional is that nobody even suspected this was going on, he did it purely to ruin an extortion scheme.  

    The media is mischaracterizing the whole thing, but since when is that new or unusual?  

    "Except for the extortionist" (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:20:40 PM EST
    Helluva of an except there.

    Fair game for what exactly?


    Fair game for whatever we're complaining about (none / 0) (#55)
    by abdiel on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    He hasn't lost advertisers and isn't being accused of a crime.  But if the media wants to talk about it and someone has an opinion that he's a bad guy, then so be it.  I do feel kinda bad for the women involved though, especially since he admitted to more than the affair that the extortionist was threatening to make public.  

    How is he different from Ensign? (none / 0) (#25)
    by diogenes on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:36:42 PM EST
    They're both victims of extortion plots and both had sex with staff.  If anything, Letterman was more polymorphous since he had sex with "staffers" in the plural.  Quite late in the day it came out that Ensign helped the husband be a lobbyist, but I somehow think that if the producer only wanted a leg up at CBS that Letterman would have happily given it to him as well.

    I take it you think (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:06:25 PM EST
    I somehow think that if the producer only wanted a leg up at CBS that Letterman would have happily given it to him as well.

    Letterman is a nice guy. I've actually never gotten that impression from him.


    Point of information (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:53:06 PM EST
    Letterman can't "give" anybody a leg up at CBS since he's not a CBS employee.  His production company is an independent contractor hired by CBS.  That also means that any CBS policies there might be on supervisor/staffer relationships don't apply.

    Alleged extortionist was arrested (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:50:49 PM EST
    Wed. Letterman [is he a "snitch"] apparently talked about the extortion attempts on his show Thurs. night.  Wonder if the NYPD and/or DA's office requested he refrain from commenting on this ongoing criminal case?  Not helpful.


    please don't play games (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:28:27 PM EST
    "Is he a snitch?" You know that a victim of a crime is not considered a snitch for turning in the perpetrator of the crime against them. "Snitch" refers to an informant who is providing evidence about others in exchange for leniency for their own misdeeds, money or some other benefit. You are trying to be snide but perpetuating the myth that people who object to snitches are suggesting victims of crime -- or bystanders -- not cooperate with authorities.

    Sorry. As you pointed out, Letterman's (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:48:10 PM EST
    attorney was wired and Letterman wasn't present.  

    From AP link: (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 10:10:11 PM EST
    David Lande, a New York City-based civil attorney whose cases have included sexual harassment, said Letterman presumably was in a position of power with a voice in hiring, firing and promotions.

    "So, to the extent that he had control over these factors with the women he was involved with, he could be subject to liability," he said. "I am sure CBS lawyers are reviewing the matter very carefully."

    Shanti Atkins, president of ELT, a firm that consults on ethics and sex in the workplace issues, said Letterman, his company and CBS could also be vulnerable to claims of sexual favoritism by others in the company if they believe people got ahead because they were sleeping with the boss.

    Of course these folks are looking for business.


    Wondering if the alleged extortionist (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:01:52 PM EST
    is the son of H.R. Haldeman?  Answer:  no.

    It'd be interesting (none / 0) (#95)
    by cawaltz on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:39:45 PM EST
    if he has anything in his contract that would cover situations like dating or hitting on your staff. Lord only knows he isn't the first entertainer to be dipping his proverbial ink in the company inkwell so to say.

    extortion... (none / 0) (#83)
    by markw on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:10:29 PM EST
    Somebody over at DailyKos asked an interesting question that I had never thought of before.  Why is it illegal to request money for refraining from doing something that the individual has a right to do?

    Extortion has been a recognized as a crime (none / 0) (#159)
    by Peter G on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:01:35 PM EST
    for hundreds of years.  When committed by a private person, it is sometimes just another name for blackmail.  Threatening to do harm to a person's property, safety or reputation if not paid money that the person does not legitimately owe you is destabilizing to society and risks retaliation by violence.  True, the more common case involves a threat to do something that would be illegal, as in a "protection racket."  But just because Halderman might have been protected by the First Amendment if he had chosen to publish what he had learned about Letterman's private life doesn't protect him from facing criminal liability if he demands money backed up by a threat to publish if not paid off.

    thanks (none / 0) (#169)
    by markw on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:11:04 PM EST
    Thanks for your reply.  It's probably too late to reply to this, but what if, for example, Halderman had simply sent a screenplay discussing Letterman's affairs to Letterman and told him that he is shopping the screenplay around and will gladly sell it to the highest bidder to do whatever he wants to be done with it, and that that person will thereafter own all rights to the story (and that Letterman was being offered first shot at it).

    Would that have been illegal?  If so, on what basis?  If not, then there's a pretty thin line between that and what Halderman actually did.


    Letterman has made a career out of joking (none / 0) (#85)
    by tigercourse on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 11:18:15 PM EST
    about other people's "love" lives. He's got a couple hundred million at least. I'm sure he can handle it.

    Why right this minute CNN is (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:05:02 AM EST
    telling its viewers about this case.  And Anderson Cooper is speaking with Tony Foreman.  Banner below screen:  Letterman confesses.  

    That's pretty funny (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:48:27 AM EST
    someone is accused of extortion while trying to blackmail Letterman for 2 million (which they have on tape along with the guy taking and depositing the payment) and the banner reads Letterman confesses.

    that's our media (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 01:59:23 AM EST
    no wonder people don't trust them.

    Oh the drama (none / 0) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:13:48 AM EST
    Someone get me my smelling salts, a rich and influential television personality isn't a virgin. I would never have guessed.

    "LEtterman extortion scandal: (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:14:59 AM EST
    new developments."  

    Mr. Letterman's situation made front (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    page of today's NYT:  link

    Ducking the truth (none / 0) (#144)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    "I have had sex with women who work for me on this show," he told his audience on Thursday night, calling himself "creepy." He added that he hoped "to protect my job."

    That's a pretty shallow description of what at least one woman did to gain herself a law degree. Truth would be closer to: a financial arrangement for sex, a payoff to guarantee silence, or a sincere relationship. A bit more than "creepy" IMHO.


    "Mistakes were made." I am having (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    trouble with Letterman discussing his liasons on TV given the age of his son.  

    "Mistakes were made", (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:15:55 AM EST
    and sometimes, when it's really, really bad, it looks like this.

    Uh (none / 0) (#160)
    by Shawn on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:14:35 AM EST
    As BTD has already pointed out, do you not get that that would have been revealed anyway, given there was a grand jury and all? It's like saying Bill Clinton shouldn't have gone on TV & discussed his liaison with Monica Lewinsky before he testified in front of the Starr grand jury.

    Letterman is a public figure but he doesn't (none / 0) (#162)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 06:12:44 AM EST
    hold public office. IOW, one can forget he exists by not watching his show and by ignoring pot-stirring 'news' about him.

    Is it possible that while she had an affair (none / 0) (#148)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    with Letterman, the company also has an education policy? I've worked for companies that helped with your tuition and you basically had to stay at the job for awhile after. CBS may do that (Warner Bros did when I was there) and she may have had access to their benefits. She did end up working for a CBS company . . . .

    why did my comment get deleted? (none / 0) (#147)
    by moderateman on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    i asked a fair question.  is this post motivated by the fact that letterman is a liberal?  he's obviously political and seems to me fair game if palin's daughter is.  is that considered trolling?

    look, i have a daughter myself.  i don't think anyone's daughter should be the subject of the news or jokes.  letterman's sex life, i couldn't care less about.  obama's daughters, too should be protected.  it just seems stupid to say "letterman's sex life is no one's business but palin's daughter's sex life is everyone's".  

    Letterman's love life... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    ... is certainly something you are free not to cover, even moreso than that of various politicians. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of the criminal in any respect. That being said, he's made a lot of money over the years poking his nose into the private lives of other people, political and otherwise. He's got to live with the consequences. I file the whole thing under "vaguely unsavory things I know about Letterman" rather than "serious grounds for being offended by Letterman", and leave it at that.

    Hopefully (none / 0) (#164)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    they would have been able to keep their jobs if they would have said: no thanks, not now Dave.