Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Willow Weep For Me

This Letterman-Palin fracas has been going on a week and I think it's getting out of hand. Tonight, Letterman--for the second time--apologized. (Some said he didn't mean it the first time.)

It started when he told a couple jokes about Sarah Palin, who was visiting New York at the time. In particular, this one:



It's tasteless and stupid and not that funny. But it probably would have been better if everyone had just shaken it off.

A few points:

1) I admit I don't know what the taste standard should be in these cases. It depends so much on context. (I'm not talking about censorship, just standards.)

2) Is Dave doing this for ratings, as some have claimed, especially now that he's in a new race against Conan? I doubt it. The joke was just one of many and he probably didn't think it would get any special attention. The controversy started because of the reaction. I'd guess Dave was startled and annoyed that people were making such a big deal of it. When it got to the level that people were demanding his dismissal, it's not surprising he'd discuss it.

3) Is the outrage from Palin and her supporters real? I can't look into their hearts, but it seems these days that 95% of our nation's political dialogue is manufactured outrage. I'm not saying people don't believe they're outraged. Just that so many have gotten used to the idea that the other side is so horrible that it's justifiable to be angry all the time.

4) Dave's live audience is on his side. I don't think that makes a difference (and I think he's smart enough to know it doesn't).

5) Some are still saying the joke was about Palin's 14-year-old Willow (who was at the game). No way. The joke doesn't make sense unless it's about Bristol. (Not that this makes the joke acceptable.)

6) Sarah Palin has certainly been attacked a lot, often unfairly. But that's part of playing in the big leagues. The question is what to do when your family gets it. Politicians regularly declare their spouse and kids out of bounds, which makes sense--unless they become news or, more often, are used by the politicians to further their careers. So it was perfectly reasonable for Palin to comment (though it's often best just to rise above it). But that should have been it. If you try to blow up this sort of issue into more than it is--saying it's an attack on women, claiming it tells us something about the state of our culture, etc--it may play well with the base, but can make the accuser look opportunistic or foolish.

7) For a long time Dave has been making stupid, false-premise jokes about politicians, and in the last few years he's gone after Bush and then Palin so harshly it sometimes seems he's lost his sense of humor. But what I'm actually more offended by is how he treats Obama with kid gloves.

4 Comments:

Blogger New England Guy said...

This was so depressing to hear because you knew it was going to dominate the straight media for a cycle. I enjoy Letterman and am no fan of Palin and as a cartoon figure, she's pretty easy to mock, but he seems more motivated to "get" her (like his Hollywood guests- specifically Julia Roberts and Kathy Griffin last week) and others than to seem funny. Sometimes the invective works but more often it seems like work. (1 daughter sex joke was pushing it but 2 was just mean)

However, I think he comes off better than Palin- imagine how more more effective she would have been had she given one tight-lipped statement that she didn't appreciate sex jokes about her daughters and then let NOW and the propriety police go after him. Instead she looks like she looks like she is using and reinforcing the image of statutory rape of her daughter for political publicity. Her future is probably as a talk show host.

5:02 AM, June 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Think of the weak logic required to believe this tells us something about our society. This joke got a lot of attention because it's so rare, and you don't hear anything like it most of the time. So how does it symbolize what's going on today?

12:44 PM, June 16, 2009  
Anonymous Lawrence King said...

New England Guy wrote: ... imagine how more more effective she would have been had she given one tight-lipped statement that she didn't appreciate sex jokes about her daughters and then let NOW and the propriety police go after him.

When's the last time that NOW came to the defense of a conservative woman, or attacked a liberal male chauvinist?

When Bill Clinton groped Kathleen Willey's breasts, Gloria Steinem defended him on the grounds that when she said "No", he backed off. In other words, liberal politicians get one free grope and then they have to back off. Whereas Clarence Thomas, who never physically touched Anita Hill, is forever remembered as a lecher.

6:47 PM, June 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thin skinned of Palin and that does not help her. Many may see her as defending her kids but she over-responded. The joke could have been funny if Dave wasn't so mean spirited about Palin.
Overall lose-lose

11:08 PM, June 17, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter