Letterman’s non-apology

by Brian McKim & Traci Skene on June 11th, 2009

David Letterman got himself into some hot water the other night. He made a joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter. The Alaska governor and her daughter attended a Yankees game earlier in the week and the Late Show host used the occasion to make a crude joke about the daughter being “knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” (There were other sexually-charged jokes, aimed at the governor, but they’re not the ones that have stirred so much discontent.)

Trouble with the joke (the real trouble with the joke, and the only reason why it wasn’t dismissed as just more routine bile directed at the former vice-presidential candidate) is that Palin was in attendance with her 14-year-old daughter, Willow, not her 18-year-old daughter.

Oops.

The ensuing firestorm forced Letterman to apologize on his show last night (see YouTube below). And so he should have. One can make crude sexual jokes about an 18-year-old and not have to apologize. One cannot make crude sexual jokes about a minor. Not if you’re the host of a network television show. (Comedians, in the proper context, can– and often do– make all kinds of crude references– sexual and otherwise, about all manner of people, places and things. High-profile, network television hosts, however, are a different creature, subject to different “rules,” for lack of a better term.)

The apology, however, was not much of an apology.

He never actually admitted that somewhere, somehow, somebody screwed the pooch badly– someone got bad info and didn’t realize that it was Willow in attendance, not Bristol. A crucial bit of information.

In the apology, he’s defensive. Here’s a crucial portion, at the beginning:

These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl… Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No.

Ah, but there is the problem: He did make that suggestion. It was a screw up. There was confusion (Was Bristol there, or was it Willow?) and the confusion resulted in a major goof.

The apology should have been swifter, should have been more forceful, should have been less defensive. It should have focused on the extremely important fact that it was mistaken identity that led him to “suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex.”

And it could have been a lot shorter.

Instead, it was lengthy, it was smirky, it was defensive and it re-told all the controversial jokes that prompted the apology in the first place… with perhaps even more laughter from the audience than the jokes originally got.

Do we care? We do, and for one reason: Some of Letterman’s defenders have used the “It was only a joke” defense. (Or the variation: “He’s a comedian.”)

“Only a joke” is an adequate defense 99 times out of 100. But, on rare occasions, that is not the appropriate defense. In this case, it was not so much the joke that caused the uproar, but the confusion and the error behind the joke that made it seem so utterly offensive. So, the joke doesn’t need defending. The apology should be for the confusion and the ensuing misconception that it was about a minor.

We thought she was at the game with her oldest daughter, who is over 18. We apologize for the confusion. It may have seemed as though I was making a crude joke about a youngster, but believe me, that was not my intent and I am sorry if anyone was offended.

And then you go find out who wrote the gag without reading the news article clearly enough to know that it was the youngest daughter at the stadium that night, and you fire him or her.

You don’t wait 24 hours then tape an 8-minute apology that repeats the joke, then basically mocks the parents for being somewhat upset that their daughter was the object of a crude joke. (No matter that the anger is over a misunderstanding, no matter how much you might despise their politics.)

It’s similar (but, we stress, not an exact analogy) to the situation of a comedian who goes into the audience, gets a garbled answer from a chap in the front row and then asks, “What? Are you fucking retarded?” and it turns out that the chap is indeed retarded. What do you do?

1. Go on defense? “Hey, cut me a break! How was I supposed to know? I would never make fun of a retarded person!”

Bad strategy. Why? Because you just did make fun of a retarded person. It’s best to apologize, make an excuse about the lights in your eyes and move on. Trying to bail out by being defensive is the last strategy you should try. Because getting them to squelch their initial anger (regardless of whether the perceived offense is borne of confusion or mistaken identity or bright lights), is nearly impossible. They saw what they saw, they heard what they heard. To their mind, they’re right… and righteous in their indignation. They might not be as understanding as you’d like, they might be over-reacting a bit, but they’re genuinely miffed.

And antagonizing them for misunderstanding your situation is an even worse strategy. You’re not addressing their situation. Instead, you’re pleading your case. Oh, boy! Let the fun begin.