Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 4:43 AM
Mon Nov 9
14 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
This is why workplace relationships between employer and employee are just a bad idea, period. Sure, it might start out fine, but what if it ends badly and the superior can't resist taking revenge? What if the subordinate acquires undue influence? What if s/he receives a deserved promotion, but everybody knows s/he's sleeping with the boss and doesn't take it seriously?
It's just a huge mess and a bad idea and Letterman's pretty stupid for not realizing that.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
[www.huffingtonpost.com]
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
Who else do we have time to meet?
Unless he's been drugging and raping interns, who cares?
If this is recent activity, it's pretty much between Letterman and his wife. And I hope she makes him miserable...
10/02/09
And he says HE felt "menaced"....
10/02/09
The only real issue is he was/is the boss. But you'd think someone would have sued by now if it was otherwise. That's Viacom money, baby.
10/02/09
The only real issue is he was/is the boss. You'd think someone would have sued by now if it was otherwise. That's Viacom money.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
I sort of feel compelled to go and look at Andrews other posts to get a better idea of just how ridiculous he might be.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
Aside from the fact that HE, himself, made jokes about it, it's natural to joke about people indiscretions. So? Yes! Make jokes and move along.
He's doesn't take the moral high ground by making tired jokes about current or past events and honestly, that's a pretty mundane zinger.
He has a late night talk show that typically uses humor jokes to make people laugh. And Gawker is not a moral watchdog, you use current events to make similar, though typically more irreverent jokes about current events.
Does anyone -- and, most importantly, your readers -- give a shit?
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
That would imply a modicum of restraint and self-awareness. Given that he was taking advantage of his staff, what makes you think he has either?
10/02/09
10/02/09
He admitted to having sex with staffers - plural. What more do you need to know?
10/02/09
10/02/09
It could be that there was legitimate consent between the two parties, but that is rarely the case when a boss has sex with an employee. If he was a middle manager for XYZ Corp. he'd be facing HR right now.
10/02/09
10/02/09
Admittedly this is equally speculative, but logic would dictate that you simply do not hear about those normal interoffice relationships because nobody talks about them because they are boring. You only hear about the ones that are news worthy because there is a scandalous and legal element to the story. It's like when you hear about shark attacks and kidnappings; statistically speaking theses things are HIGHLY unlikely to happen to you or your kids but you're not going to hear about the kid who walked home from school without incident, or the beach goer who had a nice day relaxing and getting some sun.
Furthermore, assuming you are right and there is some statistic that indicates that the majority of sexual activity between boss and employee is actually harassment, it's likely more a result of the office environment. What I mean is: since interoffice relationships are typically frowned upon, ESPECIALLY when it's involving someone and their subordinate, the people who would be prone to violate that rule are not those who would engage in a meaningful relationship that may create an unstable work environment or one that would require them to be reassigned or quite their job, it's those who would engage in unacceptable activity regardless; predators.
Either way, the statement is likely to be an unfair assertion and most likely unsupported by fact.
We only know about this situation because someone tried to blackmail him and he made brought it up on national television. This falls well outside the typical chain of events that lead to people knowing about these relationships.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but do we actually know what HR is/is not aware of?
My real problem here is that you insist on trying to paint him as a predator, even if he is, there is simply nothing supporting those claims aside from some very circumstantial nonsense that Gawker writers want to run with. The only thing you can get him on is infidelity.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
Who doesn't?
10/02/09
I'm not saying it was an analagous crime, but I am stating that Letterman supporters are mounting an analagous defense.
10/02/09
It's not advisable and probably (depending on the circumstances) a breach of business ethics, but that's for knowledgeable professionals to decide. As far as I'm concerned, he's never been a paragon of morality and never will be. Nothing's changed except now we get more self deprecating jokes.
10/02/09
10/02/09
Since Dave is a boss on that set, it could be said that having sex with staffers is a form of rape. It's the use and abuse of a position of power to receive sexual favors. Such things are more subtle than champagne and 'ludes, but that doesn't make it okay. I don't think this is something people should laugh off.
Defending someone on the basis of him being likable or an artist is exactly what a lot of Polanski boosters have been doing. I see these crimes as similar, but that could be my kooky morals.
10/02/09
Sex between boss and employee can be consensual, but it's hard to disentangle the consent from the power relationship between boss and employee. Dave has to prove that he didn't imply, promise, or allude to career favors in any of the cases where he screwed his employees. He has to prove (from my perpective; the legal/NBC implications notwithstanding) that consent was achieved strictly on the basis of sexual attraction. Otherwise, I'm going to call him a scumbag and feel pretty confident about it.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
No, having consensual sex with a member of your staff is not in any way, shape or form "rape" or any other kind of crime.
A person CANNOT base a sexual harrassment suit on "sex with the boss" alone.
Sometime people like to have sex with the boss. That's all we know about what went on. And based on that, there is no basis for a lawsuit much less a criminal complaint, though its obviously enough for you to LOSE YOUR FUCKING MIND.
10/02/09
Drugging and raping an underage girl is NOT the same as having an affair with an adult staffer. You are undermining the seriousness of what Polanski did by suggesting it's the same thing.
Second, I'm sick of people calling Letterman a hypocrite over this. Unlike the many politicians he's skewered for infidelities over the years, he has never pretended to be a moral beacon. He's an entertainer.
10/02/09
I'm yet to see anyone defend him against rape accusations (that didn't seem to exist until you made them just now) by saying he's funny, or likable.
In contrast to the Letterman story; what Polanski did is wrong on its face and in every way. He drugged and raped a 13 year old. Even if the 13 year old asked him to do it, it's STILL not ok; there is literally no way to spin it, what he did was wrong. period. The same simply can not be said for Letterman.
10/02/09
@Atilla the Bun:
@lodown:
A-FUCKING-MEN
10/02/09
You're guilty until proven innocent is in direct anathema to rational thinking and the American justice system.
I, for the sake of anyone, ever, hope that you are never on a jury.
10/02/09
He admitted to the affair. This isn't speculation or rumor - it's fact. He fucked his employee(s).
It was an affair between an employer and an employee. Undeniably. David Letterman said "I had sex with my employees" on national television.
Real, implied, or assumed advancement in the workplace cannot be extracted from the act of providing sexual consent. Letterman should not be excused because he is a performer, what he did can is akin to rape, and we should not be sympathetic to him because he is a popular entertainer.
There's nothing left to say. Either you feel strongly about workplace sex or you don't. I think it's rape without the ketamine. Your mileage varies; good for you.
10/02/09
10/03/09
"what he did can is akin to rape,"
"I think it's rape without the ketamine."
There is still this left to say: You're nuts. An bat shit insane utter lunatic. I don't mean that in an insulting way, just a factual way.
10/02/09
But! Not all those people are using sexin' as a punchline, with all the moral judgmentalism that may imply. Further, banging underlings is generally a bad practice for all concerned, and is therefore wisely discouraged by most organizations.
I like Dave, but he's fair game here.
10/02/09
10/02/09