Letterman scandal

[desertgal]

Consensual sex in the workplace. Big distinction.

Letterman had a long term relationship with Merrill Markoe, who was a writer and producer on his show during that time. It was public knowledge, there was no 'scandal' about consensual sex in the workplace during the years they were together, and no talk of a distinction between Letterman dating Markoe and Letterman dating someone who didn't work with him.

The only distinction I see now is that someone has attempted to extort Letterman over the issue.

 

[Just thinking]

If not, then I fail to see where an adult man having consensual sex with adult women is even newsworthy. Happens a lot in my neighborhood. Probably happening right now.

Consensual sex in the workplace with employees. Big distinction.

Fixed it for you, Marc.

It's not a consensual issue ... it's the subordinate issue that's important here; think of co-workers having sex with your boss. Then think of just how fair things are going to be come raise/promotion time. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. It's grossly unprofessional. And just because it may happen a lot, doesn't make it any less of an issue.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Putting asside the question of the wisdom of sleeping with a subordinate, we really don't know the exact timing of these affairs and the status of his relationship with his girlfriend at the time.

People are going to think one way about him if it happened before he was married and another way if they happened after he got married.

I have not heard one way or the other.

The guy who does TMZ, that laywer, said that there was a way the man with the evidence could have made money and the law could not touch him. Maybe write a book?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Letterman had a long term relationship with Merrill Markoe, who was a writer and producer on his show during that time. It was public knowledge, there was no 'scandal' about consensual sex in the workplace during the years they were together, and no talk of a distinction between Letterman dating Markoe and Letterman dating someone who didn't work with him.

See just more evidence of his impropriety.

 

[desertgal]

Fixed it for you, Marc.

It's not a consensual issue ... it's the subordinate issue that's important here; think of co-workers having sex with your boss. Then think of just how fair things are going to be come raise/promotion time. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. It's grossly unprofessional. And just because it may happen a lot, doesn't make it any less of an issue.

Fair enough. I'm not getting further into the whole consensual issue, since neither of us knows the details of these 'episodes' in Letterman's past. He's not the first boss to have slept with a subordinate, he won't be the last, and, without the relevant details, I won't judge him as grossly unprofessional.

I'm simply idly curious as to why this is newsworthy NOW, since it has been public knowledge for decades that Letterman had a relationship with a former staffer.

So, again, I'll ask: is there some real evidence that Letterman harassed his staffers? Raped them? Favored staffers he had slept with over staffers that he hadn't? Forced someone to sleep with him to keep their job? Is there evidence of anything other than David Letterman admitting that he had consensual liaisons with staff members?

 

[oldhat]

Fixed it for you, Marc.

It's not a consensual issue ... it's the subordinate issue that's important here; think of co-workers having sex with your boss. Then think of just how fair things are going to be come raise/promotion time. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. It's grossly unprofessional. And just because it may happen a lot, doesn't make it any less of an issue.

LOL, you're being very naive and you sound like a prudish scold. There's nothing "unprofessional" about two consenting adults being attracted to each other at work and starting a relationship. It happens every single day.

When groups of people get together, they're eventually going to have sex with each other. It's anthropology.

 

[Marc39]

Letterman had a long term relationship with Merrill Markoe, who was a writer and producer on his show during that time. It was public knowledge, there was no 'scandal' about consensual sex in the workplace during the years they were together, and no talk of a distinction between Letterman dating Markoe and Letterman dating someone who didn't work with him.

The only distinction I see now is that someone has attempted to extort Letterman over the issue.

The point of the matter is Letterman slept with interns and proceeded to give at least one of them airtime. Maybe, others were given favorable treatment.

Any interns, or others in Letterman's company, who did not participate in Letterman's game who feel aggrieved can take legal action against Letterman, his company, Worldwide Pants [Down} and CBS.

It's a classic case.

 

[quadraginta]

The point of the matter is Letterman slept with interns and proceeded to give at least one of them airtime. Maybe, others were given favorable treatment.

Any interns who did not participate in Letterman's game who feel aggrieved can take legal action against Letterman, his company, Worldwide Pants [Down} and CBS.

It's a classic case.

His company has been around for about a decade and a half. Without any apparent sexual harassment issues. This might be a sign of a well run company with employees who have not had cause to feel aggrieved or slighted.

It might be a classic non-starter.

 

[Just thinking]

LOL, you're being very naive and you sound like a prudish scold. There's nothing "unprofessional" about two consenting adults being attracted to each other at work and starting a relationship. It happens every single day.

When groups of people get together, they're eventually going to have sex with each other. It's anthropology.

You really don't read what others type, do you?

 

[Just thinking]

Fair enough. ----- I'm simply idly curious as to why this is newsworthy NOW, since it has been public knowledge for decades that Letterman had a relationship with a former staffer.

Perhaps because he dropped it like a bombshell on TV ?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

People are going to think one way about him if it happened before he was married and another way if they happened after he got married.

I have not heard one way or the other.

The guy who does TMZ, that laywer, said that there was a way the man with the evidence could have made money and the law could not touch him. Maybe write a book?

From what I have read, it all happened after he was married, but given that he was only married this past March, there is a huge window of opportunity here.

 

[quadraginta]

Perhaps because he dropped it like a bombshell on TV ?

I suspect that was mostly preemptive in nature. If he hadn't brought it up the day the dude was busted it would have been done for him the next morning on all of the network morning shows anyway.

I think that was probably the only opportunity he would have had to begin the discussion on his own terms. He's got his own pulpit, why not use it?

To his credit I don't feel like he tried to sugarcoat the situation or downplay his behavior. It was, under the circumstances, a refreshingly straightforward description of the episode. No smarmy mea culpas, no whiny justifications.

 

[Just thinking]

I suspect that was mostly preemptive in nature. If he hadn't brought it up the day the dude was busted it would have been done for him the next morning on all of the network morning shows anyway.

I think that was probably the only opportunity he would have had to begin the discussion on his own terms. He's got his own pulpit, why not use it?

To his credit I don't feel like he tried to sugarcoat the situation or downplay his behavior. It was, under the circumstances, a refreshingly straightforward description of the episode. No smarmy mea culpas, no whiny justifications.

I pretty much agree with his reasons for exposing it (as you put forth), it's the unexpectedness of it that I'm suggesting that made it as newsworthy as it did.

 

[quadraginta]

I pretty much agree with his reasons for exposing it (as you put forth), it's the unexpectedness of it that I'm suggesting that made it as newsworthy as it did.

I think it was the evidence of other liaisons that the guy thought would make Letterman pony up. It's pretty tough to blackmail somebody with something that's common knowledge.

It kind of makes me wonder where the bozo was coming from. Letterman had clearly demonstrated that he didn't have a great deal of concern about public acknowledgment of such relationships, if only through the very example you cited. I suspect that wishful thinking and a poor grasp of his victim's psychology were at fault.

 

[desertgal]

The point of the matter is Letterman slept with interns and proceeded to give at least one of them airtime.

Maybe, others were given favorable treatment.

Okay. You have now levied the charge that Letterman slept with interns, plural (although, to my knowledge, only ONE intern has claimed, in the last two days, that she had an affair with Letterman, and, at this point, it is still just a claim). You've charged that he unfairly gave her airtime specifically because he was sleeping with her, and you've speculated that he might have done the same with other employees.

Evidence? Or is this all just speculation?

Any interns, or others in Letterman's company, who did not participate in Letterman's game who feel aggrieved can take legal action against Letterman, his company, Worldwide Pants [Down} and CBS.

Has anyone?

It's a classic case.

Of what? A classic case, backed up with evidence, that David Letterman took advantage of his employees by using sex/romance as leverage, or a classic case of jumping to conclusions based on speculation?

I'm not arguing that he didn't do these things, or that he wouldn't have been in the wrong if he did. I'm just asking, again, if there any real evidence beyond press fueled rumors and unsubstantiated claims?

I like evidence.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I like evidence.

I like your avatar.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Maybe it was with Paul.
And that is the big bomshell.

 

[quadraginta]

Maybe it was with Paul.
And that is the big bomshell.

No good.

We're trying to think of something that would have been inconvenient if made public.

 

[desertgal]

I like your avatar.

Bovine smack therapy. It works.

We're trying to think of something that would have been inconvenient if made public.

Maybe Letterman was concerned that people would jump to conclusions without evidence.

 

[Aoidoi]

Trying to blackmail a male celebrity for sleeping with women... seems almost quaint, doesn't it?

Saw a blurb with the alleged blackmailer's lawyer trying to argue his way out of it. Wasn't all that convincing, but it is kind of amusing that everyone is focusing on Dave's actions and more or less assuming that the blackmailer is guilty.

Of course, I can't quite picture how one would legally demand $2 million for not publishing something.