Shotgun Confessions

Okay, am I the only one who thinks the biggest enemy we face now isn't the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, but bad taste?

Just when it looks like we've heard enough about Roman Polanski's capers, and after we finally laid Michael Jackson to rest, David Letterman has to go and open his own peculiar Pandora's box by revealing affairs with staffers, and an attempt at extortion, both before a live audience.

We must really love reality, in this country, because we can't seem to get enough reality TV. Either that, or we have some celebrity whose water is about to break pouring his heart out about transgressions that, frankly, we could have done just fine without hearing about.

In this, what someday may be known as the "too much information" age, we know which stars are wearing underwear, which senators are in bed with whom, and who's playing footsie in the stall next to us. Jeez, I liked it better back when boundary issues had to do more with foreign policy than anything else.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'd much rather hear what Dick Cheney told the FBI about Valerie Plame, as a federal judge ordered today, than about rogue sex acts committed by overzealous celebrities. And, if there are to be any redactions, they should apply to gratuitous salacious details of sexcapades not egregious violations of law committed by elected officials!

And, in the end, as the song goes -- you don't need a Letterman to know which way the wind blows.

Follow Jayne Lyn Stahl on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaynelynstahl

Comments

[Jayne Lyn Stahl - Huffpost Blogger]

hey, Ctizzie, since you're so good at critiquing people from behind a pseudonym, why don't you publish your ad hominem faux reviews using your real name? Yes, that's right---you know my name---Jayne Lyn Stahl----you've called my ideas "pedestrian," and been awfully insolent from behind the anon-e-mouse mask. Testasterone deficit? Why don't you post your insults using your real name?

[Jayne Lyn Stahl - Huffpost Blogger]

Look, I understand that there was a movement afloat to take David Letterman off the air because of a comment he allegedly made about Sarah Palin. I think that's where all this vitriole toward me, and this post, is coming from---a simple misunderstanding. I'm not a part of that movement. I abjure any effort to stop people from engaging in their First Amendment right--even if that means making a comment, on air, that some might find offensive.

What is going on here, quite simply, is an attempt to shout down someone who is merely using the occasion of a confession, by a late night comic, as a springboard upon which to make a larger statement about the need for senators, actors, directors, and everyone to climb up on a soapbox and tell us about their personal life.

As I've said, I think what David Letterman was EXACTLY the right thing to do when someone tries to extort money from you to keep certain things from being revealed which are private. I think it speaks volumes about our culture that the boundary between private and public is continually eroding, and/or being forcibly eroded by advertisers who want to make money off the personal lives of public people. Every sponsor of a television show that rewards too much information in order to boost their revenue is a de facto extortionist.

Sorry I can't please everyone. I don't write to please people--I write to expose the truth.

[ctizzie]

Now that you've had your say, I think it's time to climb down off your self-erected cross and relax for a moment. You're not being persecuted. Nobody is here to martyr you for having what is - after all is said and done - a very pedestrian opinion about privacy. Put your ego aside and consider the distinct possibility that the negative reactions you are encountering are simply because you were ineffective in writing your blog. It happens.

As a writer, you should know that If you were misunderstood (and in this case, it seems almost universally so), it was probably your own writing that created such obfuscation. Additionally, if you can't take criticism of your writing without invoking some non-existent conspiracy to malign you as a person - you should find another line of work. Finally, if you truly don't "write to please people" - then consider the newfangled technology of a 'journal' for your musings instead of blogging.

The fact is, nobody is trying to 'shout you down'. If your original blog said any of the things you have said in subsequent posts, you probably would have had ringing endorsements from every one of your readers. Sadly, that wasn't the case.

You can continue to blame your readers for "not being able to read between the lines", or you can focus on writing better. The choice is up to you.

[Archivist1000]

"""" David Letterman has to go and open his own peculiar Pandora's box by revealing affairs with staffers, and an attempt at extortion, both before a live audience. """"

First, Ms Stahl ... Letterman didn't open this Pandora's box ... the extortionist did.

Secondly, the 'live audience' was HIS show and HIS audience ... and that is what the extortionist wanted to destroy ... so KUDOS to Dave for handling this situation brilliantly. HIS show, HIS terms ...

Dave didn't have his wife do the 'traditional perp-walk of support' which he could have done, and KUDOS to him for that too.

This situation was handled just the way I would have expected Dave to handle it .... I respect him more than ever.

Ms Stahl ... do not fall into the old trap of blaming the victim please .... Dave is the one who was being blackmailed and he has every right to take control BACK from someone who wanted to victimize him.

WTG Dave!

[Catothemuchyounger]

The Polanski case is about, amongst other things, a rich and famous man seeking to get away with a crime, and those in society who would use their influence to help him do so. I take that to be a matter of public import, not private gossip.

[ghenry]

Not understanding why you had to include Michael Jackson being laid to rest in a article about bad taste and reality TV.

[Jayne Lyn Stahl - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight. I like David Letterman, though I never watch late night TV, I think he's a stand-up guy, and I like the way he handled a sticky situation.

These are tought times to be a comic because most people have forgotten, or never knew, how to read between the lines, so let me help you out: this piece isn't about David Letterman--it's about the fact that the truth and consequences mean little in the face of the almighty buck, as well as that the corporate media has run off with this country.

[ctizzie]

I doubt anyone read this blog and concluded:

a.) that the author is a comic.
b.) that the author thinks Letterman is a 'stand up guy'.
c.) that the blog is - despite never mentioning it - about the hijacking of America by the corporate media.

Whether that's a failure on the part of readers to 'read between the lines' or a failure of the author to elucidate her true intentions is debatable. I certainly wouldn't assume that the preponderance of Huffington Post readers (who cared enough to comment) misread this, however.

First of all, the only thing even remotely comedic about this piece is the Swiftian assertion that 'bad taste' is a threat on par with Al Qaeda. That's funny. After that, however, it's nothing more than a belabored screed about the bad behavior of celebrities and politicians (including most notably - Mr. Letterman) and the insatiable appetite of consumers for such stories.

Don't insult your readers by claiming to be misunderstood. Try writing more cogent blogs instead.

[chezsuzannenyc]

It's the Era of Too Much Information" meets the "Age of Distraction. "Can't blame him for going public. It was a good move all things considered. This way he can control the conversati­on.Everyth­ing now is a scandal and salacious even when isn't. There are no claims of sexual harassment. What's the problem? There's really no choice anymore. Do you ever get the feeling "they" are trying to dumb us down and manipulate us with all this crap? Nothing's private anymore. We had our President talking about his private parts on television. I boycotted that, but it's in the ether and it demeans us all.

[honoursplendor]

Wait a second. This poster is comparing David Letterman to an admitted child ra.pist and an accused (but never convicted) pe.dophile? He had "relations" with an adult female. He wasn't even married!!! How is this the same thing!???!?!

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayne-lyn-stahl/shotgun-confessions_b_307266.html

[ctizzie]

5TH ATTEMPT TO POST:

Mr. Letterman took the power back from an extortionist by admitting the very things, publicly, that the criminal meant to use against him for monetary gain. Letterman did not, as is implied in this post, go into "gratuitous, salacious details of sexcapades" in his broad description of affairs that will - in the next few months - unfortunately become a matter of public record. He simply owned up to his own, private matters before anyone else could use those matters against him.

It's also interesting to note that if the author wanted to write about the Plame Affair, she very well could have and needed make no reference to David Letterman at all, but CHOSE instead to write about this.

[Aunty Ericann]

I'd pay someone $2,000,000.00 to make a movie of my sex life.

Meanwhile, I care little about the peccadillos of celebrities. But, if a Republican wears diapers with a stripper, I wanna know all about it.

With all my love,
Aunty Em

[PatA]

What is this business of "we" heard this and "we" felt this. You can speak for yourself when you write a blog. Perhaps I don't feel the way that you feel and would like for you to leave "me" out of it.
I admire Dave because he stopped the extortion in it's tracks and fessed up.
Why don't you write a piece about how "you" feel about the guy who tried to make $2mil for being a fool?

[dobson180]

Rogue sex acts? He dated a woman in his office a few years ago. The only reason such a thing went public is that one of many people who knew about it stupidly tried to extort money from him.

[NHBill]

What else was Letterman supposed to do? Deny it? Pay the guy? He used his own forum to tell his side of the story directly to his audience. They heard about the whole matter first directly from him. Letterman seems to be one of the few public figures that got the message that the cover up is always worse.