wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Letterman's an angry has-been, sadly not funny anymore. Retire already and let's watch Craig Ferguson.

The Dave Letterman's "coming clean moment" and the reaction of the audience reflect how we view this kind of behavior.
The first thing that comeso mind is how those in position of power exploit and abuse their subordinates. Whether was consensual or not, the quality ad integrity of thejob performance is compromised.
Can we refrain ourselves from doing whatever we want to do, just because we can?
How dare we critize and make the fortune these so-called celebrities make making fun and putting people down, when we the critics, are engaging in the exact same behavior? Where is our moral fortitude?...

I admire Letterman for taking a blackmailer by the horns. It is potential victims' fear of public scorn that allows a blackmailer to extort them for money. Letterman called his bluff.

Neo puritanism is exactly what is going on with all the people expressing their outrage at Letterman's sexual indiscretions. Consensual sex between unmarried adults is hardly a speck of fly sh*t in the grand scheme of moral debauchery that is the United States. And what very little there is to tut-tut at in this affair was only brought to light through methods far, far "sleazier" than anything Letterman did. In the court of my own moral judgment, this information on Letterman's sex life is inadmissible.

Now, having gotten that out of the way, I should point out that Conan O'Brien is much funnier.

Couldn't he just avoid the whole possibility of harassment charges/abuse of power by picking up women outside of work or dating them when their tenure was over? And a bedroom above the studio? Stupid and lazy.

In this Anything Goes era (just like the old Cole Porter song), it seems ok that a famous talk show host should have had affairs with members of his staff. It also is also ok for him to admit it after he got caught because somebody tried to blackmail him. Maybe we are all jaded because of Bill Clinton, the President, who finally admitted his affair with Monica L. I believe that David Letterman should not worry about the loss of his job. After all, he is a multimillionaire. People will watch his show for many years to come. He did the right thing and was honest about it when he had no other choice.Eugenia Renskoff

It's simple, he's a hypocrite (for all of his jokes about pols having affairs), and a perv (I mean, he's screwing young ladies some 30 years his junior --- eew).

Now, he's a has-been; no, make that an icky has-been.

only the women/woman looks ridiculous in this situation...i mean seriously d. letterman? and why write it in your diary?

Dave's a pervert - the average age of his female assistants was probably 20-30 or more years younger then he and you can just tell by the way he leers at young starlets what's on his mind.

More importantly he abused his role as employer and possibly federal and state law. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the women came forward to sue him now that the silence has been broken.

He should have been fired after that horrific statement about Sarah Palin’s 14 year old teenaged daughter Willow being raped by A-Rod. I am sure that no self-respecting woman would ever watch him again. He needs to go!

PS - Besides, while he was funny once, he is as my British friends would say, “past it.”

No matter how you feel about The Letterman Show - David Letterman had the courage and character to catch this person (a tv producer, I think) in the act of extorsion (sp?). I believe this is what is important and news worthy.

Seriously. #1, he *was* a victim -- of extortion. He handled it entirely correctly.

As to the issue of sleeping with women who worked on the show, allegations of coercion should be treated in the appropriate manner. There haven't been any yet, though, so far as we know. Assuming that this is what we're talking about is presumptuous and naive.

As I suspect anyone who's witnessed firsthand the zone around famous people -- particularly famous *men* -- will attest (if they're being honest), coercion is rarely necessary. You can debate explanations all you want, but the fact is that even moderately famous men are -- what? treated? subjected? -- to implicit and explicit offers of sexual congress from surprising numbers of women. In my observation (of men far less famous then Letterman), they by no means have to solicit it. It happens constantly, and from women you'd think would never consider it. I'm sure the reasons behind it are complex, and IMO it defies judgment. But it's reality.

That said, it's not true of all women, of course; and it doesn't mean that there was nothing untoward in what took place in this context. My point is merely that to presume no agency on the part of women in that kind of a situation -- to assume that it's a one-way street between famous men and their admirers -- is to be blind to the nature of fame and its environs.

c'mon... this is news like Ronald Reagan's affairs were news.... NOT.

Why are we discussing this!!! It's too interesting. I'm a cultural snob, this is burning my ears.

OH MY GOD David Letterman had sex?!? Off with his -- you know what.

Since when is having sex and 'affair'?

Keep in mind that the reason the alleged blackmailer undertook those actions was because he was financially decimated in a divorce settlement. While that doesnt excuse illegal actions, it is just another reminder of how unfair New York Marital Law is to successful men.

this is an interesting story not because he had affairs with his staff, but because some freak tried to get 2 million dollars out of him to cover it up...

Power shmower. I find that being naked is a pretty effective equalizer between two consenting adults.

If we were speaking about Jon Stewart my mental visualizing of all this would be much nicer.

I'm so tired of hearing about people's "affairs." The thing people in this country need to admit - as adults - is that adult romantic and sexual relationships are complicated, and this is not territory that a person should be judged on as a public as business person.

why is this even being discussed on NPR. I hate it when people butt into other peoples personal lives. just leave it alone already. sigh.

Hi, I never thought Letterman was as funny as other people seemed to.

However, I don't think this is Letterman's "private life" - I view him as a boss engaging in what COULD be sexual harassment.

Perhaps the women consented, but it is very hard to know given his position of immense power over these women as his employees. He could make or break their future careers.

A "private matter" would be if he had relations with a woman not his wife or girlfriend who did NOT work for him.

Since these women worked for him, I think it is a major problem for the network. I am sure they have policies about this type of behavior.

Who cares? This is nobody's business but his own, and the women who willingly entered into relationships with him. It's an symptom of our voyeuristic, neo-puritanical, repressed culture that we obsess over and judge the sexual behavior of everyone in public life. What Letterman does legally in his bedroom has no bearing on whether he's funny or not.

The reason I'll read any juicy bits I can is because I love Dave!

If Dave continues to be funny, I'll laugh! And I'm sure he'll be funny in the future. Right now, I feel kinda bad for him, and that bit of pity makes it hard to laugh. As soon as something else comes up to distract us, we'll forget about this (Lindsay? Britney? Paris? Help us out here!)

And The Pianist, hell, even Tess, are *still* great movies.

Bully for Dave for taking control of the situation.

Oh boy, who cares!

I tired of Letterman years ago! Boring.

I'm not surprised about the revelation but I don't think he should have used his show to admit to it. He should have released a statement and then referred to it on his show.

Letterman is a washed up act, time for CBS to replace him.

Didn't Letterman have these affairs when he was still "unmarried"? It takes two. For all we know his main relationship knew all about his affairs. And the women he had relationships with had to have known he had a long-term partner. He didn't put a gun to their heads. What I don't get is why someone would want to extort money over it.

really, I don't care - don't read the
tabloids, haven't watched any late
night TV in decades - obsolete
medium AND content - what can I
say, I'm a child of public radio...

(let's not forget that the woman he recently married was also an employee -- so 1. the issue of dating your employees would start w his wife, and 2. for that reason the wife would presumably be alert and perhaps consenting of any other relations)

The issue for me is about power. Thinking about David Letterman's sex life though is kind of gross.

I would have stopped watching him now because of this issue had I not stopped watching him a few years ago for the extreme vulgarity he had injected into his show.

What Roman Polansky did was NOT statutory rape! It WAS RAPE! The girl in question continually stated she said no and stop. That's RAPE!

These aren't extra marital affairs! He wasn't married when they happened! He's only been married for a couple of years.

he should have pointed out, for his sake, that the affairs took place when he was single.

still gross though, tmi

dave is great. who cares about his affairs. he broke no laws. go dave!

His presentation of the event was slick, almost too slick. He strung the audience along until they were lassoed into viewing him as a "victim" and not a sleaze bag (as he has portrayed other adulterers during his monologues).
It depends that as more information is released, if the audience will infer that Letterman abused his power and authority or if the affair(s) were between mutually consenting adults.
It also will question any other female employee that gets on-air time...is she or isn't she fooling around with the boss, and that is too bad.