21 Responses

1. John says:

   June 11, 2009 at 5:25 pm

   I agree, the apology should have been short, sincere, and to the point. Not turned into an 8-minute “bit”. This is why I’ve always like Jay Leno better than Dave.

   Reply
2. Jon says:

   June 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm

   I’m not sure it was a mistake and that someone just missed the fact that it was the younger daughter at the game.

   Maybe the intended target of the joke was Palin herself, and also “family values” Republicans who preach one thing, while their kids do another.

   And maybe the person who wrote the joke just didn’t think that people would focus on the fact that the vehicle to get to the joke’s target happened to be a minor.

   Questionable thinking at best (especially for national TV), but it makes sense to me–I’ve seen comedians “take chances” like that. Like the guy in Spinal Tap said about who’s smelling the glove, “There’s such a fine line between brilliant . . . and stupid.” (Or something like that.)

   Reply
3. Todd Jackson says:

   June 12, 2009 at 3:24 am

   I think Letterman probably should have made the apology a bit shorter – but I think one of the reasons why Letterman’s went long on it is that he’s a little disturbed by the accusations that he “perverted” (or now that it would be good to keep Palin’s daughter away from Letterman). A cheap joke aimed at one target that unfortunately hits another shouldn’t be the thing that sums up a person’s character – particularly in a monologue about the news. The rhetoric that he’s a sick individual as a result of a joke that was more likely badly aimed than ill-intentioned is one of the most disappointing things about this unfortunate event.

   Reply
4. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   June 12, 2009 at 4:56 am

   Todd:

   In this case, the folks who were somewhat unnerved by the joke were quite clear on who was at the game.

   The man making the joke, we have conceded, was not.

   The folks who were unnerved were understandably alarmed at the joke.

   And they were not privy to any information that the writer of the joke (and, apparently, the deliverer of the joke) were confused.

   If we view the entire affair in chronological order (which, in a logical world, without benefit of a time machine, we are forced to do), those who were offended had every right to be.

   To any observer (to one who read that day’s paper carefully at least), Letterman made a sexually-tinged joke about a 14-year-old.

   That much is indisputable.

   Only later did we learn that there was confusion.

   So, only in retrospect can we determine that Letterman was not, in fact, a “pervert.”

   However, up until such information was provided, the accusation had some legitimacy.

   None of the pervert language was used (to our knowledge) after any defense was made regarding the confusion of the identity of the daughter at the Yankees game.

   Anyone who makes such a claim afterward isn’t paying attention. (But we suspect that there were none.)

   Is there lingering anger at Letterman? Certainly. Could all or most of that been defused by a better-crafted apology? Again, certainly it could have.

   And had viewers learned that the joke was made with full knowledge that it was indeed Willow at the game, then an argument might be made that it sums up the character of the joke-teller. But such apparently is not the case.

   But no one is claiming so.

   The lingering anger, the further condemnation of Letterman. it seems, is not so much for a poorly aimed gag but, we suspect, for a lengthy procession of jokes aimed at the former candidate, topped off by what was perceived as a cheap shot at the candidate’s 14-year-old daughter. It’s what we might call the Final Straw Effect.

   No amount of “What I really meant was…” will suffice for some. And it’s understandable.

   And the poorly-crafted apology, with overtones of self-pity and defensiveness, only added fuel to the fire.

   What we have here is not a case of folks who didn’t get the joke. They got it quite well.

   But the joke was made with inadequate information on the part of the teller, which led to misunderstanding.

   And the followup apology, no matter how well done, would still leave some unsatisfied.

   But it is the apology that seemed to infuriate some folks. And in the course of that apology, the confusion was cleared up to the satisfaction of some, but the underlying ugliness of the Rodriguez joke and others (ugliness that even Letterman himself alluded to) has led to rhetoric that doesn’t so much dwell on any accusations of perversion as much as on meanness.

   We neither condemned nor defended the joke. But we did express the view that the apology was poorly executed.

   Reply
5. Ross says:

   June 12, 2009 at 8:20 am

   The pervert mudslinging was a bit much. It’s a pretty strong accusation, and when I first heard the joke, I associated it with Bristol, of whom many jokes have been made about. (I think it was Kimmel who ran the newsclip of Todd Palin indirectly referring to the baby as a mistake)
   Letterman should have done it quicker and left it, so as to end the news cycle. Now the Palins are carrying on afterwards, “declining the invitation” and continuing something that should have been done already.
   I can’t wait until McCain returns to the show.

   Reply
6. Todd Jackson says:

   June 12, 2009 at 12:05 pm

   Nice long reply to my comment. Sadly I cannot respond in kind. But one point:

   >>None of the pervert language was used (to our knowledge) after any defense was made regarding the confusion of the identity of the daughter at the Yankees game.

   The suggestion was again there today when Palin declined the invitation to come on the show. There was a note about it being “wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman.”

   Perhaps it’s a joke. But considering the ugliness some attribute to Letterman’s motives, it’s arguably equally as graceless. Why not be better than Letterman? Why not be above it all and show him to be small? It’s just sad.

   Reply
7. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   June 12, 2009 at 4:56 pm

   Ross:

   The Palins are “carrying on afterwards,” because, during the “apology,” an invitation was extended. (Was it sincere? It’s hard to tell– yet another way in which the apology failed.)

   We’ve seen public apologies before. They are often written in legalese, read into a microphone, in a monotone voice. Sometimes, they’re touching and they border on poetry.

   We’ve seen Letterman apologize before. On at least one occasion, it was touching and appeared to be heartfelt. This was not such an occasion.

   And that is what the post was about– the utter failure of the apology. (Thus, the title– “Letterman’s Non-Apology.”)

   There is much residual anger– both because the initial joke stirred much anger and because the followup did little to quell any rage and may have, in fact, heightened it.

   “Carrying on afterwards” is one way of characterizing it, we suppose, if like Letterman, you are seeking to minimize their anger or somehow draw some sort of equivalence between his predicament and the predicament of the aggrieved party.

   Which seemed to be two more goals of the apology… and yet another reason why it failed.

   Remember: This isn’t a blog about politics, it’s a blog about standup comedy and the culture. If this incident is viewed dispassionately, it is quite clear who screwed up and who was wronged.

   And in the ensuing damage control, the situation was exacerbated.

   As for Todd’s speculation as to whether the Palins’ vow to keep their second daughter away from Letterman was “graceless,” or a joke. However, he has, after all, said Willow’s mother is a moron who looked like a slut and implied her sister was a whore. On national television. Perhaps the family is entitled to one gratuitous swipe.

   From a tactical standpoint, however, the invitation was a grave error. It opened the door. The media had no choice but to seek a reply/rebuttal. If there truly was a desire for the family to appear, it should have either been made privately. Or, if made publicly, it should have been made with a bit more seriousness.

   This is Public Relations 101.

   Reply
8. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   June 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm

   One of the reasons we took issue with the apology issued by David Letterman the other night was that it seemed… inadequate. And, as things turned out, it did little to quell the rage out there.

   Would a better apology have done so? Yes. That’s what we’ve contended all along and that was the point of our posting.

   A sincere apology, copping to a giant screw up, a swallowing of pride might (we say, “might”) have stopped the entire controversy in its tracks.

   Now we have statements from Palin, on rival network NBC’s Today show, recounted in an AP story.

   “Palin said Friday that it was time for people to rise up against Letterman’s form of humor.

   “No wonder young girls especially have such low self-esteem in America when we think it’s funny for a so-called comedian to get away with such a remark as he did,” she said. “I don’t think that’s acceptable.”

   It’s not just Palin, but others also have been lumping all comics together. When Letterman used the “It’s just a joke” defense, we knew it would backfire and besmirch all of us.

   In ten years, we’ve stuck up for comedians on many occasions, when it was warranted. On a few occasions however, we’ve advised comedians to take the bullet, fall on the sword, (insert your own war-related metaphor here) in order to isolate the damage, in order to take sole responsibility for the goof-up. Because, sometimes, a goof-up is a goof-up and it’s best not to plead “I’m just a comic!”

   The controversy will die down quickly. But it’s going on three news cycles now. Fortunately, tomorrow is Saturday.

   Reply
9. Ben says:

   June 12, 2009 at 8:55 pm

   Shecky said: “If we view the entire affair in chronological order (which, in a logical world, without benefit of a time machine, we are forced to do), those who were offended had every right to be.

   So, only in retrospect can we determine that Letterman was not, in fact, a “pervert.” “

   If we view the entire affair in chronological order, we have over 30+ years of Dave to draw from and so we don’t need to look back in retrospect to know that Dave is NOT a “pervert”, quotes or not.

   Reply
10. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

    June 12, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Ben:

    We put it in quotes.

    Are you unaware of what that means?

    We’ll repeat what we said: In the 24 hours after the joke aired, it appeared to any logical person that Letterman had made a sexual joke about a 14-year-old girl, thus making him, in the eyes of some, a man who is capable of making a sexual joke about a 14-year-old. To many folks, most of whom might not be familiar with Letterman (or only passingly familiar with his persona), he would be held in contempt, viewed with disgust.

    We suspect that the “pervert” term is coming from the WashPo analysis of Palin’s interview:

    “Palin had suggested Letterman is a pervert who cannot be trusted around teenage girls, saying in a statement issued by her office, ‘It would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman.’

    Lauer asked the governor if that was a fair comment in retrospect. She replied, ‘Willow no doubt would want to stay away from David Letterman after he made such a comment.'”

    The word was introduced into the mainstream conversation, it seems, by Mary Ann Akers of the WashPo.

    As for our discussion here, it was Todd Jackson who introduced “perverted” into the mix. (In quotes.)

    Note also that Letterman made not one, but two jokes about older men having sex with one of Palin’s daughters.

    We’re not parents, but we can sympathize with someone who is and who sees a late-night talk host making gratuitous sexual references about his/her child.

    It’s asking an awful lot of the offended parent to:

    1. Be understanding when such a joke is proffered.

    2. Be intimately familiar with said talk show host’s body of work.

    3. Forgive and forget within 48 hours of the incident merely because a weak apology (which repeats the jokes) is done on national television (complete with a chuckling audience).

    An awful lot of the analysis and comments on blogs here and there have been extremely long on emotion and very short on logic.

    We’ve not commented on the jokes themselves– we’ve limited our analysis to the apology. Again, we found it to be lacking in sincerity. And we saw it lacking in other ways, at times and on balance not resembling an apology at all.

    One of the ways to judge the effectiveness of an apology is to determine whether the aggrieved is in any way mollified.

    It would seem, in this case, that the apology was a failure.

    Especially since a major portion of the apology was saying, in essence, “I wasn’t implying that your 14-year-old daughter is a whore, I was implying that your 18-year-old daughter is a whore.”

    Anyone who dismisses that simple fact (and expects the parent of the object of the joke to “get over it”) is being willfully obtuse.

    And anyone who ignores or dismisses the fact that Letterman– mistakenly or not– made a sex joke about a 14-year-old is also being willfully obtuse.

    One other thing that is being totally ignored– Letterman has been a comedian for 30+ years, so he knows well where the line is and he knows well when the line has been crossed. And he knows all about perceptions.

    We don’t suggest that he should have responded like a man. We suggest that he should have responded like a comedian– one who knows when he’s made a joke that might be deeply offensive– and thereafter should have issued a statement that was more in keeping with the serious (perceived) nature of the offense.

    Instead, it seems, Letterman himself is being willfully obtuse.

    He launched into a joke based on bad information. Is there a more classic error? That’s Comedy 101.

    Instead of “These are just jokes,” the defense could have been, “Whoops, I thought the other daughter was at the game. My bad. I can understand how upset you would be… I would be, too. But I didn’t mean it. And the proper steps have been taken to ensure that it won’t happen again.”

    That would have been the end of it.

    Reply
11. Ryan...The...uh...Guy says:

    June 13, 2009 at 1:51 am

    Dear Shecky,

    I thought Letterman’s Non-Apology was the correct response to the public outrage over this situation.

    You argue that the joke was despicable whether Letterman intended it or not. I won’t refute that. But, Letterman is claiming that he was unintentionally despicable and the Palins/media were claiming, and convinced the public, that he was intentionally despicable and maliciously targeted Willow Palin. BIG DIFFERENCE! And a ridiculous accusation! That is what Dave was fighting against.

    You know how at a murder trial, the prosecutor needs to prove the intent to kill, otherwise, it could be just negligent homicide? Would you treat a person who causes an accidental death the same as a serial killer? No. But, that’s basically what happened to Dave in the media– His intent with that joke was not the same as the media or the Palins portrayed it. And he is being lambasted on conservative radio and Christian message boards as a child-rapist-pervert-misogynist, even now.

    Anyone who has ever been accused of saying something that they didn’t mean knows what a frustrating situation it can be, and that it only gets worse once in the rumor-mill. Should Letterman go on the air and just say, “Sorry for the pain I’ve caused” and just accept all the additional negativity people are pushing on him, beyond what he actually said? NO!

    What about the people on the other side who blew this thing out of proportion? He should, and did, address the general media’s misrepresentation, the general public’s misinterpretation of his (unintended) material, and the Palins’ reaction to that joke. Just apologizing admits wrong-doing and this situation was not entirely his fault. The snowball effect of bad info was (and is still) in full motion. I looked at probably 20+ news articles in a row that all said something to the effect of “Letterman joked about raping 14-year-old.” That’s a lot for one comedian to just apologize for and let slide. There’s more to this than just the joke, and, thus, a quick apology for the joke would not be sufficient.

    Yes, if Sarah and Todd are getting cozy, watching the Late Show, and they hear that joke about A-Rod impregnating their “daughter,” there’s no doubt in their mind who the joke is talking about. It’s very unfortunate. But, if they would’ve issued a statement saying, “We feel that Letterman’s jokes portraying the sexual activity of our daughter, a minor, is inappropriate,” then, a kind and swift apology from Letterman would have been necessary.

    But, no. The Palins threw words like “despicable” and “perverted” into the mix. They seethed their negative emotions into the press, into cyberspace, and into the world market. The Palins didn’t just say the jokes were wrong, they went on attack against the comedian’s character. And the media LOVED it, as I’m sure the Palins, who are familiar with press, could’ve guessed. You cannot deny that the Palins could’ve handled the situation better, whether they were personally offended or not– They are in politics, for crying out loud, and should know not to fly off the handle and make accusations. Anyone who thinks the Palins’ outrageous overreaction was justified is being willfully obtuse.

    I’m not asking the Palins to “be understanding when such a joke is proffered.” I’m asking that they handle this situation like mature adults and offer a statement that doesn’t include mudslinging. You don’t think the Palins had any responsibility in making this thing bigger than it needed to be? C’mon.

    You wrote: “…it appeared to any logical person that Letterman had made a sexual joke about a 14-year-old girl.” WRONG: It only appeared that way to people who were privy to specific information that was NOT included in the joke. For most people, who are less informed and not keeping tabs on which-Palin-is-where, it was only logical to think Letterman was talking about Bristol.

    [CONTINUED BELOW]

    Reply
12. Ryan...The...uh...Guy says:

    June 13, 2009 at 1:55 am

    It’s also safe to believe that viewers, who aren’t researching the veracity of each joke, assume that Letterman was talking about the 18-year-old BECAUSE the joke is being told in the context of a network television show. Plus, isn’t the job of a comedian to work inside of whatever context is given? And if that includes relying on the audience’s incorrect assumptions, so be it. Give that writer a promotion (if he/she did, indeed know, that it was Willow at the game, but assumed the audience wouldn’t be the wiser– Because, according to the laughs, that writer was correct.)

    The fact is, the vast majority who saw the actual joke weren’t imagining A-Rod raping 14-year-old Willow Palin until the media jumped on the ambiguous (ambiguous concerning the word “daughter”) Letterman joke, researched the facts, and printed that particular interpretation. Follow that with the Palins saying far more than they should have, and you’ve got public outrage (the same public who would’ve easily, ignorantly, believed it was Bristol and laughed it off, had the subject just been dropped). The Palins, themselves, along with the media, are responsible for placing the disgusting imagery in the minds of Americans and, thus, it could be argued, they are the ones who made the joke offensive. Don’t blame Dave for what they did; don’t make him apologize for it either.

    It was also the media and the Palins who introduced the word “rape” into the context of the joke. Letterman never said or implied that the sex was forcible. You can argue “statutory rape” would be the offense, due to the girl’s age, but neither the Palins nor the media used that particular phrase– They chose their words, and their omission of words, very carefully to imply something even more vulgar: FORCED sexual activity with a minor, as condoned by David Letterman. Should Dave have to apologize for that?

    Sarah even tried turning it into a political issue by attempting to show how different “Hollywood and New York entertainers” are from the rest of America. Really? She’s going to use this tiny scenario to target the “liberal media” and ignite a flash of conservatism across the country? (Pick your battles, Honey.) It was not David Letterman trying to capitalize on this error and turn it into a political issue. Should he have to apologize on behalf of the “liberal media,” as well?

    So, after ALL OF THAT false media attention and accusations and misunderstanding, all the needless “rape” comments and child-molester-negativity that the media pushed onto the public about Dave, you want him to give a heartfelt apology? Fess-up for things that he didn’t do?

    [CONTINUED BELOW]

    Reply
13. Ryan...The...uh...Guy says:

    June 13, 2009 at 2:05 am

    No. Letterman has earned the right comment on the allegations. Let the man defend himself. Let’s hear, “… the jokes they’re upset about.” Let everyone see the national response and, then, let America decide if the overwhelming attacks on Letterman’s character were justified. And if they weren’t justified, shouldn’t the media and the Palins take some responsibility for their actions? They are the ones who blew this thing out of proportion. Where’s the apology TO Letterman?

    When you look at the scales and weigh what Dave actually did against how people reacted, Dave was getting screwed. There was so much against him that he had to address; that’s what took 8 minutes.

    You have written that the “apology was a failure… especially since a major portion of the apology was saying, in essence, ‘I wasn’t implying that your 14-year-old daughter is a whore, I was implying that your 18-year-old daughter is a whore.”

    But later you write: “Instead of ‘These are just jokes,’ the defense could have been, ‘Whoops, I thought the other daughter was at the game…'” In essence, isn’t this exactly the same as above? In essence, isn’t this what Letterman did?

    And, your argument seems to rely on the idea that both daughters are equal. Willow may be off-limits, but Bristol is completely fair game because (1) she’s of legal age, (2) her sexual exploits have be subject of public scrutiny in the past, and (3) she is a public figure who has talked openly in the press and at public events regarding sexual activity. Had she been the subject of the joke, the Palin family would just have to grit their teeth and take their licks, because they would have no grounds for complaint.

    (The Palins are understandably upset about what that joke implied. IMPLIED! Todd Palin, of course, said, “Any jokes about raping my 14-year-old are despicable.” That statement, on it’s own, if you want to play the “Implication Game,” IMPLIES that Todd Palin would be just fine with a joke about raping his 18-year-old daughter. Right? That’s what he said, plain and simple. Plus, he said “my 14-year-old.” My? MY! So, jokes about raping OTHER 14-year-olds, those are still in play, right, Todd? The Implication Game always sucks…)

    The jokes that Letterman told got laughs, not once, but, twice. And the second time, the audience KNEW the jokes were (unintentionally) about a fourteen year old and they STILL laughed.

    Does it matter at all that the public laughed? At ALL? Doesn’t that say something about the public’s perception of the joke? The public didn’t perceive it as perverse or off-limits. How many people does it take to make a joke “offensive?”

    If extra work has to be done, post-laugh, to prove that a joke was done in bad taste, that’s a terrible waste of energy and should not be condoned. Why would anybody put up a fight to discredit a joke? And, if successful, spread all over the national news and publicly destroy the joke teller? What next? Does the audience have to give back the laughs? Good luck.

    Wasn’t more damage done from the literal interpretation of the joke created by the media and fueled by the Palins? An apology, no matter how sincere will not erase all of that.

    Sincerely,

    Ryan Stout

    http://www.ryanstout.com
    http://www.myspace.com/ryanstout
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RyanStoutEnt
    http://www.twitter.com/RyanStoutEnt

    Reply
14. Jimmy says:

    June 13, 2009 at 4:00 am

    Come on, this is nonsense.

    Palin is doing that politician trick, where they intentionally misunderstand something so they can pretend to be offended about it, and drum up some attention.

    I mean, come on, it was OBVIOUSLY a joke about the pregnant daughter. The joke is only funny if it’s about a girl thats been pregnant before. Total nonsense.

    Reply
15. Ben says:

    June 13, 2009 at 4:05 am

    Ryan, I love you.

    Guys, in your response to my comment you asked if I knew what the quotes around the word “pervert” meant. I felt it was obvious that I did as the end of my comment stated that we know from Dave’s 30+ years in show business that he is “not a “pervert”, quotes or not”.

    And when you say it is asking a lot of an offended parent to be familiar with the host’s body of work (point #2), that point may be valid if not for the fact that the offended parent in this case had a running mate (for the highest office in the land!) who was embrolied in a sustained controversy with this particular host when he cancelled on him for no good reason and then had to come on the show with his tail between his legs to try and save face!

    Also, you talk about how the effectiveness of an apology can be determined by whether the aggrieved is mollified. That may be true when it is a case of me apologizing to John Kensil for insulting the suit he bought on eBay, but when a media figure like Sarah Palin jumps onto a chance to malign, as she put it “Hollywood and New York entertainers”, she is not going to be mollified no matter how sincere the apology is…she is going to jump on this issue and wring as much publicity and sympathy as she possibly can.

    BEN

    Reply
16. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

    June 13, 2009 at 5:33 am

    To Ben and Ryan:

    Again, there is a whole lot of emotion there, but little logic.

    And precious little grasp of the facts of the situation.

    We grow tired of reiterating our points.

    Go re-read our original post if you’re not clear on the matter.

    P.S. It’s really okay to realize, once in a great while, that your heroes might be fallible and that your mortal enemies might have a valid point now and then. In fact, it might be healthy to acknowledge it from time to time.

    Reply
17. Ryan...The...uh...Guy says:

    June 14, 2009 at 10:22 am

    Dear Shecky,

    Actually, my post was full of logic. I thrive on logic. Any emotion that you read into my post was, in fact, my passion for logic.

    And I really resent you dismissing me as “having little grasp of the facts of the situation.” If you want to call my comments ignorant, you’ll have to put together some form of argument against my statement(s) to support your thesis.

    I know what the issue is:

    – You think Dave’s joke was wrong, whether it was intentional or not. Yes. I agreed with you on that.

    – You thought the apology should’ve been shorter and you didn’t like how Dave was smirky about it.

    Actually, if I step back from this situation and take away the unnecessary and EXAGGERATED language that the Palins and the media piled on Letterman in the press (such as “rape” when there was no rape, or implication of rape), THEN I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

    But, because I live in reality, I refuse to make a LOGICAL evaluation of Dave’s situation without factoring in the mudslinging.

    I can’t believe you are so committed to your position when:

    (1) You have never addressed the idea that the media and Palins publicly condemned the “rape” when there was no rape, implied or otherwise, in the joke.

    (2) You have never addressed the idea that the Palins could’ve handled this situation better on their end and didn’t need to make Dave out to be a monster.

    Those don’t factor into your opinion at all?! THAT doesn’t seem logical.

    Let’s say David Letterman comes on the air and makes the short quick apology you suggest. The headline the next day reads, “Letterman apologizes for joke about raping 14-year-old Palin.” For some reason, you think that’s fair. I don’t. That’s not a joke he made.

    Perhaps you should stop reiterating your points long enough to reevaluate YOUR grasp of the facts of this situation. The whole situation. Not just your side of it.

    Sincerely,

    Ryan Stout

    http://www.ryanstout.com
    http://www.myspace.com/ryanstout
    http://www.facebook.com/ryanstout
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RyanStoutEnt
    http://www.twitter.com/RyanStoutEnt

    Reply
18. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

    June 14, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    Ryan:

    You wrote that we “think Dave’s joke was wrong, whether it was intentional or not.”

    Actually, we didn’t “think Dave’s joke was wrong.” It is an important distinction to make. We said he made an error, told a joke based on inadequate (or wrong) information and ended up telling a joke about an older man having sex with a 14-year-old.

    We then took issue with the apology and whether or not it was adequate.

    _ _ _ _

    As to whether it was a joke about rape, we refer you to the FBI’s definition of statutory rape:

    “Statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent.”

    To those observing the joke as it aired, with full knowledge of who was in attendance and understanding the joke to be about Willow (which is a totally plausible interpretation of the remark), it was indeed a “rape joke.”

    _ _ _ _

    In our posting (and in some comments) we did indeed address the reaction of the aggrieved party.

    When you write that we never “addressed the idea that the Palins could’ve handled this situation better,” you ignore that part of our posting and our comments.

    We stated (and re-stated) that “the folks who were unnerved were understandably alarmed by it.” And we further reiterated that the apology did little to stem that anger and, in fact, stoked it.

    Actually, many are of the (legitimate) opinion that the Palins reaction might be considered restrained, considering what was said.

    Even the National Organization of Women– a group that is no friend of the GOP or of Sarah Palin– has condemned Letterman in harsh terms on their website.

    Mary Ann Akers of the Washington Post wrote: “Letterman has apologized — somewhat — for his joke.”

    As they say, “It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.” In this case, it’s not the joke, it’s the apology.

    There seems to be two layers of outrage– that which was stirred by the initial joke (or set of jokes) and that which was incurred by the apology.

    And it’s that second wave that we’ve focused on. How intense it is, how it could have been avoided and how it has prolonged the reaction.

    One of the most egregious errors of the apology was it’s attempt to minimize the reaction of the aggrieved. Some would say that there’s no room anywhere in an apology for an attempt to minimize the feelings of those who are offended. Once the apology drifts into a analysis of the reaction (or “overreaction”) of the offended, it ceases to be an apology.

    This is Apology 101.

    We don’t condemn Letterman. In fact, we are sympathetic– we’ve all been there, done that. But we cringed when we saw the apology. That’s why our initial post ended with the phrase, “Let the fun begin!”

    Apologies (sincere or otherwise) don’t always work– just ask Don Imus. But the attempt must be a good one and it must match up to the offense. In this case, as we’ve said, it failed.

    Reply
19. Jim Treacher says:

    June 14, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    “Actually, my post was full of logic.”

    Is that what they’re calling it now? Hey, logic happens. Same logic, different day.

    Reply
20. Ryan...The...uh...Guy says:

    June 14, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Hmmm…

    The FBI definition of statutory rape? I already addressed the “statutory rape” VS “rape issue” in my original post; what each means VS how it was reported. You can go back and read it.

    Yeah, you addressed the Palins’ responses, a little bit. Sure, they were justified in some of what they said, I agree, and have agreed. Were they justified in ALL that they said? That’s where I take issue; you won’t even allow for the idea that maybe they went overboard just a tad.

    And seeing as how Letterman’s ratings are up, it seems the apology was effective in one way or another.

    Sincerely,

    Ryan Stout

    http://www.ryanstout.com
    http://www.myspace.com/ryanstout
    http://www.facebook.com/ryanstout
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RyanStoutEnt
    http://www.twitter.com/RyanStoutEnt

    Reply
21. Jim Treacher says:

    June 14, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    How wonderful that his ratings are going up. Maybe he can do a Teen Slut of the Week segment. And who cares if she really is or not? It’s just comedy. Relax, ya little whore.

    Reply