shopping cartCART
Share |
MORE ARTICLES ON HOMEPAGE >>
Posted On: 10/5/2009

Disclosing trysts, Letterman deftly contained damage, PR pros assert
By Rob Reinalda
robr@ragan.com

‘Late Show’ host blends candor and humor in on-air explanation to his audience

David Letterman has been cracking jokes on late-night TV for more than 25 years. 

He got serious on Thursday night’s telecast and divulged that he had had sexual encounters with female staffers—and that he was the target of a multimillion-dollar extortion plot.

A key question for many is whether he successfully deflected damage to his career.

“He handled it in textbook manner,” says Fraser Seitel, who “wrote the textbook.” A prominent PR author and teacher, Seitel is managing partner of Emerald Partners public relations.

“You have to get the bad news out quickly, in your own context, your own agenda, on your own terms.”

Seitel explains how Letterman, who clearly came prepared, navigated potentially devastating personal and professional straits. “It was as awkward a TV moment as there ever has been, but it was also riveting,” Seitel says. “The audience actually thought it was a joke, at first. Letterman turned it into a PR exercise.”

Letterman did offer intentionally funny imagery when he depicted the blackmail payoff as a jumbo check, like one a golf tournament winner might receive.  

“He’s a consummate pro,” Seitel says, “with a great sense of timing and of his audience.”

There was sporadic, perhaps nervous laughter rippling through the studio as Letterman explained about his testifying before the grand jury.  The “Late Show” host revealed that he had done some stuff that was “creepy.” That word, in particular, drew chuckles. “Now why is that funny?” Letterman said, looking a bit flushed.

However, Seitel observes, “As Letterman sensed an element of humor, he played to that.  Then he got serious, and the audience then realized the gravity of the situation.

“He brought them to a crescendo.  And when he explained what had happened, he was right on target.”

Part of that explanation involved Letterman’s saying that he had felt concern about his own safety and that of his wife and son. 
 

“On a personal level,” Seitel says, “it’s all terribly embarrassing. But in an ironic sense, show biz is not real life, so this could actually create excitement for the show. The ratings on Monday will probably go through the roof.” (Friday’s show was taped Thursday night.)

“The big loser in this could be CBS, relative to bosses’ sleeping with subordinates,” says Seitel, who added that the network would need to review its policies on such matters.

Seitel demurred on whether he thought the extortion case against CBS employee Robert Halderman, who entered a not guilty plea Friday, would come to trial.

The impact on Letterman’s reputation “depends on what else comes out,” Seitel says. “If it was consentual sex, I don’t know that there will be much more to it. But if these women say they were intimidated into it, then it could have complexities.  Otherwise, it will just pass into the bizarre Letterman lore.”

So, what does Dave do next?

“If he’s smart, and he’s as savvy as anyone on television,” Seitel says, “he will add a name to those he jokes about—Cheney, Palin—and that’s his own name.”

“It’s only hypocrisy if he doesn’t poke fun at himself and continues to rail at Ensign and Spitzer and the like.”

Seitel notes that two recent “Late Show” guests, Martha Stewart and former President Bill Clinton, mishandled their own difficulties. He contrasts their situations with those of Hugh Grant and Kobe Bryant.  The various responses provided case studies, he says. 

Letterman, Seitel says, “really has learned that the best antidote is to come out quickly and clear the air.”

Letterman, in turn, has provided a lesson for others, says Tripp Frohlichstein, founder of MediaMasters Inc.

“I have often said, ‘When in doubt, get it out, as it always smells worse as it ages.’ This philosophy helps put you in command of a situation,” Frohlichstein advises.  

“The initial success of Letterman’s action should be a lesson to corporations,” he says. “They can accomplish the same thing when they face serious problems. 

“Instead of allowing the corporate ‘ego’ to keep things as quiet as long as possible, they should instead get the information out, take their lumps and move on.”

Article comments:
Monday, October 05, 2009 9:04:57 AM by Brian
It was largely a failure as a PR move. A true "deft" move would have been to apologize to his son, his wife and those he had sexual relations with outside of his marriage. Instead, he admitted to getting caught...no true apology. He's lost this viewer and many more that I am hearing from. Values and honor still count to many people more than momentary pleasure.
Monday, October 05, 2009 9:16:44 AM by John Cowan
CBS' legal position is a little unclear, according to various newspaper I read, since it doesn't actually "own" the Late Show—Letterman's own production company, Worldwide Pants does. And the sexual harassment element of the story could be the big bomb waiting to explode if any of Dave's girlfriends come forward to say they felt pressured by him.
Monday, October 05, 2009 9:17:30 AM by Tripp Frohlichstein
One more thing to add-this was a smart thing for David Letterman to do assuming there isn't something significant he failed to disclose that later could change the story. The attorney for Robert Halderman appeared on the Today Show this morning suggesting there might be more. If that is true, there could still be problems for Letterman. However, watching the entire interview, Halderman's attorney actually did a poor job, lending one to believe even more in Letterman's version of the story. He complained Letterman had the advantage of the media to tell his story. But when Ann Curry said he had the opportunity now to give Halderman's side of the story, he declined. He was too vague in his interview to accomplish anything other than making Letterman more believable. When it was over, I wondered why he even bothered to appear.
Finally, a note to Brian-Letterman's relationships, according to reports, were all BEFORE his marriage.
Monday, October 05, 2009 9:47:02 AM by Marion
I think what is smart about the way he handled it is that the disclosed just the right amount of information. He didn't get too specific or too vague. He didn't specify when these liasons occurred or jobs the staffers held. So we can't villify him as an adulterer or sexual harasser specifically. We get the idea that "hey Dave made a mistake" and that seems forgiveable, at least for now. Will it work in the long run? Wait and see.
Monday, October 05, 2009 9:50:15 AM by Jane
As a PR move this was the best he could do. But like Brian, he has lost me as a viewer and it is difficult to respect him. I'm sure he "apologized" in some sense, to his wife, at least to put her on notice that all hell was about to break loose. Although all these "relationships" took place before he was married, he had a long term relationship with his current wife, since the 1980s, so this speaks volumes about his character. Add the boss/subordinate thing to mix, even if it was consensual, and it gets muddier. If more emerges, the PR move may prove to bite him in the end. But ratings are sure to go up for awhile, so if that's your measure of good PR, bravo to the creep.
Monday, October 05, 2009 10:06:43 AM by Hollis
For all the people saying that these relationships happened before Letterman's marriage while he only got married last March, he's been in a relationship with his wife for more than 20 years. They're common-law husband and wife if nothing else. He cheated on her.
Monday, October 05, 2009 10:20:46 AM by pat
I have a theory about why people are so interested in the sex lives of others.

It's like my theory about why people ask others if they've seen any good movies lately.
Monday, October 05, 2009 11:11:03 AM by Jesse Austin
Pat - I'd like to know your theory about why people ask others if they've seen any good movies lately. Whether asking or being asked, I view it as simply a conversation starter that often yields lively results. Would there be darker motives behind asking this question?
Monday, October 05, 2009 11:16:16 AM by pat
Yes - People aren't sure about what they're doing, so they want to check it against what others are.

That's my theory.

Pat
Monday, October 05, 2009 11:18:32 AM by Susan Speer
Remove moral and ethical commentary and get to the PR point of the matter. What Letterman did was neutralize the extortionist by negating the value of the information, a brilliant, perfect move in any context. He communicated personal information with professionalism and brevity. He didn't pander to the sordid tidbit mongers again, brilliant, because it leaves sparse sidebar and follow-up material. If he was your client, isn't that the strategy you'd recommend?
Monday, October 05, 2009 11:39:49 AM by pat
Remove morality and ethics and get to PR - are you serious?
Monday, October 05, 2009 12:01:29 PM by Kathleen
@Susan Speer said, "Remove moral and ethical commentary and get to the PR point of the matter." This statement seems to indicate that great PR work makes Letterman's repeated cheating on his spouse with his subordinates (and thus, exposing his family, employees, network, advertisers, etc. to ridicule, embarrassment and an extortion attempt) a non-issue. What recommendations would you make to Roman Polanski's PR counsel (if he has one)? If he communicates the fact that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl with "professionalism and brevity" does that make his actions okay? It never ceases to amaze me how many PR practitioners are able to utterly divorce themselves from the ethical and moral implications of their clients' behavior. I think it's a poor reflection on our profession that no matter how heinous someone's actions, there will always be a PR flack willing to represent them and spin their story for the media. No wonder the general public thinks PR people will do and say anything for money.
Monday, October 05, 2009 12:18:28 PM by Laurie
Why would any ethically astute PR professional dub Mr. Letterman's self-righteous, hand-in-the-cookie-jar maneuver as 'deft?'

Quid pro quo in the workplace is not 'deft,' it's extortion and Mr. Letterman's 'great sense of timing and of his audience' was PR at its most smarmy and manipulative.

Sadly, Mr. Letterman has slithered a long way from his sincere and heartfelt words following September 11, 2001.





Monday, October 05, 2009 12:50:21 PM by wes3inPa.
I agree with Laurie re the citation as "deft." The audience should have gotten up and walked out ... especially given Letterman's many negative references in the past to others who have had similar moral lapses. This just continues to underscore the world of difference between the media elite and the rest of us in "flyover country." I can't say he lost a viewer in me over this, however I quit watching him years ago.
Monday, October 05, 2009 12:52:08 PM by carol
What will Mr Letterman teach his son about sexual behavior? That anything goes, as long as you've got your PR campaign all lined up, ie, be prepared to 'fess up in case someone tries to extort money from you?

Also, apparently, Mr Letterman has not given any thought to his female staffers, all of whom are now presumed to be guilty of having had sex with him. How about them? How about their families?

Puts a whole new spin on the term 'public relations.'
Monday, October 05, 2009 12:59:38 PM by Michael Sebastian
Brian noted that Letterman should have apologized to his wife, his son and those he had affairs with. But what if he's not sorry? Or, sorry or not, what if the apology was disingenious. Would it be better for him to provide a sincere explanation or an insincere apology?
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:01:19 PM by Ken K.
It is important to note that this article is about PR, not morality. Like it or not, but as PR practitioners, we are all hired guns, putting our clients in their best light.

From the PR standpoint, did David do the right thing by putting everthing on the table first? I think so.

In recent conversations with friends, I contrasted Bill Clintons denial with Arnold Schwartzneggars immediate admission and apology for his wrongoings. Clinton provided fodder for the press to dig deeper and uncover many skeletons whereas Schwartzneggar flattened the issue immediately. Whereas all of my friends readily recalled Clinton's misdeeds, many of them had to be reminded of Schwartzneggar's. Point proven!

So, from the PR standpoint, kudos to Letterman for a job well done. As for the morality issue, that is really between Letterman and his family or those directly involved. Letterman is a comedian, not a priest or an elected official. Most of us listen to him for entertainment, not moral guidance. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:06:24 PM by beth
Oh geez, get over it, would you? Yes, it was "creepy" as Dave said, and he definitely cheated on his girlfriend/wife and that sucks. But, Dave is a comedian, not a politician or someone who is supposed to be a role model in life, and apparently he's just as frail a human being as anyone else. But, from a PR standpoint, at least he told the truth and got it out as quickly as he was able to, after his grand jury testimony. If you watch Dave, you know that he has changed immensely since the birth of his son, becoming warmer with his guests and more down-to-earth. So this must be a giant embarrassment for him and I think he was sincere when he said he was worried about his wife and child. Now he has to deal with their hurt and disappointment and all this hoopla, but from a PR perspective, he seems to be handling it pretty well.
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:16:59 PM by wes3inPa.
Ken K ... I would argue public relations is not necessarily just about putting clients in the best light. It's about doing the right thing to the extent we can within the relationship that exists between an organization and its publics. There is, indeed, a certain morality with public relations excellence theory. I would also argue that, despite the fact he's a comedian, he does serve as a certain role model for members of society, which is unfortunate but a reality. The same is true for sports figures who use steroids, etc.
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:24:44 PM by DL
I just can get over how some peopel feel they have a right to judge someone else's marriage? I no nothing. I don't if this kind of behavior is fine by their rules as a couple, I know nothing about the staffers. How can PR/Communications people make all these statements via assumptions? Sticking with the PR end of it, I agree it is best to get out in front before it bites you, no question. Telling everyone about what is going on definitely lessens the impact.
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:33:50 PM by Carol
Perhaps the ethical position for a PR professional is to remain neutral in such issues – is the PR professional responsible for the unethical conduct of his or her client?

Perhaps by hiding the information – through lying or actively covering up the truth – the PR professional enables the unethical conduct, and therefore also has blood on his or her hands. Was the PR professional waiting outside the bedroom door with a confidentiality agreement for the woman to sign?

However, encouraging the client to come forward and helping to craft that message seems ethical – that is, neutral – enough to me. In any situation there are multiple truths, one of those truths in this case may very well be that Letterman is a human and therefore flawed, and has the right to ask his audience for forgiveness. The damage that will be done to Letterman's career is due to his unethical behavior, and fairly so.

Monday, October 05, 2009 1:46:03 PM by Leecee
This might have all happened before Dave's marriage and before his son was born. But Stephanie Birkitt got a trip to the Olympics on her "Late Night" watch, a gig that others might have been more qualified to get. But she was sleeping with the boss, so gets first dibs.
As far as PR goes, it was extremely clever move by Letterman, but it's not the end of the story.
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:46:42 PM by Fran Onofrio
It's my understanding that the "relationships" were before he was married.
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:46:43 PM by Fran Onofrio
It's my understanding that the "relationships" were before he was married.
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:52:28 PM by Debbie
That's why I want to get out of PRI am embarassed by my peers who have made comments on this issue like, "as PR practitioners, we are all hired guns, putting our clients in their best light." That's rightignore morality and ethics, all for the sake of our clients. Puhleez! No wonder people refer to PRpractitioners as "flacks who put a spin..."


Monday, October 05, 2009 2:21:21 PM by wes3inPa.
I agree, at least to an extent, with you, Debbie. The primary issue often revolves around who determines which moral stance is best, even what is moral, etc., but that's a topic for another discussion. After more than 30 years in public relations, I, too, become occasionally depressed by the state of the field and the fact so many operate in what has been called the press agentry model (get media attention, sometimes at nearly any cost) rather than a contingency or relationship-management model of practice. But we have to keep plugging away at it, helping senior management understand the benefits of true public relations and its ROI. Now, down off the soapbox....
Monday, October 05, 2009 2:27:25 PM by nonam
Well it's clear that the PR profession has refugees from the political arena - the self-righteous morality judges are among us. If you can't think or work without letting your emotions and social judgements rule you, can you really be a professional of any kind? I understand Susan's isolation of the case study from the perspective of practice - how can this be applied to other situations. We can't only work for perfect clients, or stop working for them once they make a mistake (or two or three). Letterman's handling of this situation and the article referring to it are hopefully indications that PR is moving away from "spin" and more towards counseling clients to be appropriately accountable, contrite and corrective, instead of the old school way of burying and deflecting. As a wife and mother I would hate to deal with that, but I don't sit in judgement - that's for him and his family to work out. He's a celebrity who happens to be a man. The best of them fall short.
Monday, October 05, 2009 2:33:10 PM by StanTWB
This is not about deft PR moves. This is about doing the right thing. In that context, which is the only context, Letterman did the right thing. He broached the subject and explained what he had done. He certainly wasn't proud of it he was clearly chagrined, not at getting caught, but at his behavior. As a viewer, he doesn't really owe me an apology for how he conducts his personal life. I'm not excusing it, but he's not one who has made a career holding himself up as an icon of morality like Senator Sanders and Elliot Spitzer and others. What these posts show is that PR people get to caught up in themselves and the spin. How about just say it, take your lumps and move on. That's what Letterman did.
Monday, October 05, 2009 2:42:42 PM by wes3inPa.
Then, why, StanTWB, has he made such a career of denigrating those who have not acted in a moral way? I saw a compendium last evening of clips in which he chastised folks for doing what he did. Perhaps in the glass house of TV, he should have been more circumspect in throwing stones. Nonam's suggestion about the way public relations should gotoward counselingis correct, but why are so many upset by someone making a morality-based observation? I don't consider myself self-righteous in terms of morality, but I can say what Letterman did that prompted his announcement is wrong, at least according to my ethical guidelines.
Monday, October 05, 2009 2:47:40 PM by apincus
I'd disagree RobLetterman's performance wasn't a "deft" one, although I would agree his admission was a step in the right direction. Yes, PR 101 says to get the bad news out yourself, but a much better response would have been to show some genuine remorse, particularly in the form of an apology to the women involved. Not everyone is going to see this as "boys will be boys"and snicker along. An apology to the women (not one of those ridiculous "IF I offended anyone" types) would have given this a different tone. If I've got this right, these were offenses committed before marriage and fatherhood, so while it's obivously embarrassing to his family, the larger issue remains the one of "abuse of power." He controlled these women's livlihoods after all, which is why this is even an issue beyond what his wife thinks. Whether the staff come forward now and suggest they did what they did to keep their jobs (or not), he needs to address it. Sure Letterman's humility isn't why his audience loves him, but he needs to get this right regardless of the legal position of CBS and regardless of the fact a majority of his audience is young and male. Advertisers won't care about thatThey're going to want him to make this go away as quickly as possible. He can still get this behind him-he's an entertainer with a well-known reputation after all, not an elected official and unless there's much worse to come, I'm betting he'll do just that-but he'll have to do better than this. Admission can't be the sum total of his strategy (see how that blind spot is working for Governor Sanford right now.) Otherwise, he's just another guy who "doesn't get it". Luckily, good PR and doing the right thing are NOT incompatible-.
Monday, October 05, 2009 4:08:06 PM by beth
Ok, so let's address why he didn't "apologize" - have any of you ever worked with lawyers? They won't let their clients apologize for fear it would incriminate them in a later lawsuit. So, we, as PR people, have to do the best we can with crisis communications, within the boundaries of what we know is the truth and the right thing to do, and within the boundaries of what the lawyers will allow. We can argue with the lawyers - I've tried - but the client is usually going to listen to them. Then, once we have done our jobs, we can fire the client later. But as long as we are on the payroll, we do have to try to salvage as much of the client's reputation as we can.

And, to wes3inPa - dude, he's a comedian! He makes his living making fun of people and the ironies of life. If you don't like comedians, fine. But don't chastise him for doing what comedians do.
Monday, October 05, 2009 4:40:38 PM by apincus
He already admitted his guilt on national tvsex with stafferspresumably on advice from the lawyer he was talking about. What he didn't do is aknowledge what that meant for the women on his payroll. Every client to my mind is paying for the unvarnished truth and best counsel about how this will play in the court of public opinion as well.
Monday, October 05, 2009 6:24:37 PM by jack
About half the comments here hold marital infidelity as so odious as to shun the perpetrator, while the other half takes it as a dismissable offense. Two points of view, all valid to those who hold them. So now tolerance is a question. Are those who think differently from me to be shunned, or not? I say not. Not that big a deal, with too many really big deals out there to work on.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:32:30 AM by Anonymous in DC
To those of you who are addressing the moral issues: yes, he screwed, er, messed up. You've made your points, and we agree, it was very wrong.

But this is a site (and thread) on PR and how to handle such situations, whether caused by accident, stupidity or worse. Let's keep the focus of this discussion on the PR side of this, where it belongs.

It's ironic that several comments note Letterman's past jibes at Clinton, Spitzer, et al. But let's remember that those targets of his jokes did NOT handle their situations proactively. Their denials, confessions and/or apologies came late in the game, while Letterman outed himself before anyone else could. In prime time, yet. Not through a third party (i.e., PR advisor, lawyer or friend), but himself.

That's what's notable about how he's handled this, strictly from a PR perspective. And that's what this thread should be about... how public figures (should) address their indiscretions.

BTW, in Monday's show (his first since his on-the-air admission), he offered what I (and many others) thought was a very direct apology to his wife and son. It struck me as very heartfelt... and another wise PR move.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:58:36 PM by Ken Kalman
Wes3inPa-

David Letterman as a role model???
For Homer Simpson, maybe.

By the way, Im having s*x with my staff right now. I'll save you a place if you are interested.

Comment on this article
 
Your name
 
Name 
E-mail 
All the fields are optional
Ragan.com moderates comments and reserves the right to remove posts that are abusive or otherwise inappropriate.
 
Type the characters you see below.
 
RELATED STORIES
RELATED PRODUCTS

Home | Internal Communication | Public Relations | Speechwriting | Web Content | Government Communication | Tips & Tactics | Hot Topics | Back to Top
MyRagan | MyManageresNetwork | MyRaganTV | Blogs | Podcasts | Jobs | Forums | eNewsletters
About Us | Copyright 2010 Ragan Communications, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Search | FAQ | Contact Us | Store | RSS RSS | Widgets | Site Map