Question of the Day | 10/30/2009 4:00 am
David Letterman vs. John Edwards: When someone comes clean about their wrongdoing, are you more willing to forgive them?

40 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Isn’t the word "forgive" a little too strong? For celebrities of whom we have no personal contact, maybe a softer expression "to set aside their bad behavior" would be more appropriate. After all, whatever their wrongdoing, if it did not affect us personally, then we do not need to forgive in order to once again become a fan; we only need to know that a person has accepted that their actions were inappropriate.
I think, for the most part, that Americans are more than willing to allow a celebrity to declare their mea culpa and then put the episode aside. Of course, if that celebrity should be caught again in a similar jam, then only the truly devoted fan will remain to watch the next performance.
As for John Edwards, he is a Class A rat and his actions were not acceptable. He put the country at risk. There is no forgiveness or setting-aside for the likes of him.
Clinton, Edwards, Letterman. There’s a difference? They got caught and then attempted to worm their way out of it. Good word for them. Worm. Mensch is not a good word. Candice, really. Mensch?
And Liz, loving someone does not excuse their lying. And Martha Stewart did more than lie. She conspired. All for a paltry, really, amount of money. I think it was more a matter of her outrage that anyone would question her about anything. I love Martha Stewart as well. But I would never turn my back to her. Especially in the kitchen. Not after that "how to commit mass murder on a head of lettuce" performance on national television. And SHE probably has slapped an employee in the face with a lettuce leaf. Screaming "no more wilting lettuce leaves."
Don’t you think Martha Stewart victimized herself in a way? People who "do well by the public" should hold themselves to a higher standard. The people who keep them "rolling in the dough" so to speak will.
The one thing I didn’t like was what I didn’t like about the Helmsley matter. There is a different standard applied to women. Men are shrewd. Women are just bitches. If there had been a "Mr. Stewart" I have to wonder if the charges against him would have been dropped the way they were against Harry Helmsley. As if it were her accountants, not his, who couldn’t keep things straight on the books. As if it were her secretaries, not his, who couldn’t keep things straight on the books.
I also wonder why they even bother to have trials in Manhattan. Everyone seems to be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to public execution by the tabloids.
Thank you Liz. From the perspective of the celebrity whose living depends upon public participation and approval, I see your point of view. Again, from the celeb perspective, perhaps they really do need to hear the words we forgive you.
Liz,
I totally agree with you about Martha. She was convicted and sent to prison for lying about a crime she was never charged with!
I think it’s obvious that the nature of the transgression(s) and the degree of regret dictates the extent to which the celebrity or public figure is forgiven. John Edwards is a truly reprehensible character (and hardly seems sincere in regard to his continuing apologies) while David Letterman appears humanly flawed. So far, we haven’t seen any of Letterman’s female staff claim victimization by him, so it seems easier to forgive his behavior. Many people think Martha Stewart was an object of a governmental vendetta and a goal of discrediting her as undesirable (aren’t most strong, independent, successful, self-made women victimized in the U.S.?) I think the media plays a too-prominent role in influencing the public’s judgement of public figures and celebrities, essentially shaping public opinion in many instances. Thus, a number of factors influence whether or not I forgive a public figure who has admitted to committing transgression(s). Some merit forgiveness, others simply don’t.
Honesty is the best policy; specifically being honest with the party(ties) ones negative actions affect.
If it’s a public official instead of hiding ones failings/mistakes own up to them; especially if caught. In-order, to avoid having to do so behave and respect yourself, respect your family, friends and constituents.
Past relationships before serving in public office and before marriage is not any-ones business. As long as it did not involve criminal activity especially activity that involved children. Past sexual liaisons with straight or gay adults is ones private business. I would suggest ending all hypocrisy and projecting a holier than thou image if you know your closets are full of skeletons .
I’ve always said that I would scream from the roof tops yes I did this or that long before the press attacks. If you cringe, plead and cower they delight in torturing you. If you boldly proclaim, it loses its power.
Example: Yes I scr- -ed __________. What about it? Who are these folk (press) anyway. I’d simply tell them to pucker up and - -ss my - - -.
The regreat that these men feel are at getting caught. The degree of difference is that John Edwards was trying to be president (was he trying to be President Clinton?) and Bill Clinton was president — certainly a far greater harm was done by them to more people then by a television celebrity. John Edwards was busily humiliating his wife while she was battling cancer — a special ring of hell for him; so no, I could never forgive him. The rest of them? I can forgive them, but can their spouses?
Dave Letterman — it seems that would be a perc for the job — how very sad. I thought the days of the casting couch were over; guess not. For me, I just don’t know how I would feel or what I would do.
A little nagging thought though, these men seem to want to be caught. Even with all of their achievements they needed to let you know that they still had "it". Otherwise, how could they possibly think, with the media and their digging, digging, digging, that they wouldn’t be? It does seem that the days of "wink, wink boys will be boys" are over for men.
I think there is a world of difference between Letterman and John Edwards. Letterman is an entertainer, NOT a political powerhouse who aspired to become a candidate for the most powerful office in the world. Edwards managed to convince his desperately ill wife to cover up for him, and in so doing, he betrayed his party and the American public. Letterman’s apology was - it seemed to me - sincere. He admitted he was a bonehead, made a terrible mistake, and would have a long hard road ahead to mend things with his family. I have yet to hear anything approaching that kind of openness from Edwards. Or, frankly, from Clinton.
I suspect that the best way for folks in public life who fail in a spectacular and highly publicized manner is to admit it quickly, apologize sincerely, and instead of groveling for forgiveness from us, put their effort into restoring some kind of trust within their family. Pay your dues, keep your nose clean in the future, and try to do some good in the world - those would be bits of advice that in my book would trump public "forgiveness" any day.
Forgive, huh? The court of public opinion is getting out of hand - it’s not up to us to forgive, it’s up to their spouse
If their transgressions are somehow illegal (prostitution, underage or otherwise) or professionally unethical (that is, on company time) then the public (or the employer) has a right to forgive (or not to), but really, we need to just stop caring who is zooming who - it’s none of our collective business

7 Comments





























