On Tuesday, David Letterman insulted and attacked trans people everywhere with this crude and tasteless “joke.”
On Wednesday, HRC and GLAAD, among countless others, demanded Letterman apologize. On Thursday, journalist Rachel Maddow, herself a member of the LGBTQ community, and someone who has done a great deal of good for the community, appeared on Late Night with David Letterman.
I have all the respect in the world for Rachel Maddow. She is a great representative of our community. She is smart, gracious, funny, worldly, has a great sense of history, and seems to know everything without making you feel insignificant.
But I had hoped that her “purpose” for appearing on Letterman last night would be to explain to him and his audience why his Amanda Simpson “joke” was not only not funny, but tasteless and offensive. He made no apology, nor did Maddow broach the subject.
Is it her responsibility to educate David Letterman and CBS about the importance of demonstrating respect for trans people, and for people who are just plainly qualified to hold a job for which the president of the United States has appointed them? No.
But as a member of the LGBTQ community, was it a good idea for her to have appeared on Letterman without him having delivered an apology? Was it a good idea for her to have appeared on Letterman without discussing the subject?
I say, no. As much as I respect Ms. Maddow, I wish she had used her prestige and clout as a “boycott” of David Letterman’s show until he had done the right thing.
What do you think?
Update: 12.08.10:
Chris Geidner (Lawdork) reminds us that Rachel “Maddow spoke out against “trans panic” over Obama appointee – http://tinyurl.com/ybpenc4 – but not on Letterman.”
Good point. I just wish she had used her political capital, as it were, to demand Letterman apologize, or to say she would appear on the show only if they had an on-air conversation.
Related posts:
- Yes! Last Night’s Maddow On Letterman!
- 3/16/09: Rachel Maddow On Letterman
- Rachel Maddow On Charlie Rose
- Why I Love Rachel Maddow. “You’re Lying”
- Video: Letterman’s Transgender Attack
{ 9 comments }
I've stopped expecting every gay and trans person who rises to the status of celebrity or public figure to be our mouth piece. Because, however they got there, I'm guessing it wasn't because they're gay or trans.
I think Amanda Simpson does a fine job speaking for herself. Rachel Maddow also does a fine job speaking for herself despite regular attacks on her sexual orientation and appearance from right-wing activists (and that lame SNL parody). And if we want to be seen as individuals and not just a group to be dehumanized, then we have to let our own be seen as individuals.
It was tasteless & hurtful to people I'm sure, such prejudice is still socially acceptable unfortunately, it'll be the last to fall.
But calling for boycotts should be a last resort, not the first impulse in my opinion. You're looking to increase understanding not alienate people for their ignorance. Dave might not get it now but if enough people talk to him privately there's a good chance he would come around.
I don't know what her opinion is on the incident, but it's not Rachel's responsibility to lecture Letterman on the content of his show, she might have broached the topic in a humorous way, as is her style, but I think the idea would've had to have been discussed with Letterman beforehand so that he was ready for it and perhaps prepared to make some conciliatory gesture.
I don't think Rachel is really the right person to go after Letterman since they're kind of peers. It's kind of not done, inappropriate etiquette so they tell me. And journalists who work for corporations are quietly discouraged from doing anything that might damage the bottom line of another sister corporate entity or anyone who works for them. Regardless of her personal ideology, Rachel is owned and operated by a corporate media outlet, she's not free to speak her mind, and anybody who thinks she can is fooling themselves.
I'm sure someone like Lady GaGa wouldn't have a problem jacking Dave's jaw a little in public. You need somebody who is a strong voice of advocacy, and someone with equal or greater power in the public sphere and I think the Lady qualifies these days. As a performer she has a kind of freedom that no journalist is privy to, certainly not any journalist who works for the mainstream media.
I don't think anyone advocating Rachel Maddow "going after" Letterman. She could have said something positive about the appointment and made a joke about the questionable taste of the skit. But total silence was a mistake in my opinion.
As a member of the gay community, I really didn't find this to be offensive. I sometimes think that we, as a minority group, take things way too seriously … that everything is intended to be an insult. If a straight person tells a joke about another straight person it is not to demean their sexuality … so why does it always have to be demeaning for there to be a joke about a gay or transgendered person? I think that the intent is the important thing, and I personally did not find negative intent in this joke. I am sure there were people offended by it … but then those are probably the people who are offended by ANYTHING anyone has to say about the gay community in the form of a joke. Laughter is a tonic … drink up!
I do not think Rachel "boycotting" Letterman who have made any point whatsoever. She would have just been a guest who was never booked. Accepting the invitation then lecturing Letterman on taste (or tastelessness) would have seemed impolite and wouldn't have accomplished a thing either. I watch Rachel daily for all the stories no one else covers, if her being on Letterman expands that audience. More power to her. The NYTimes would not have covered the Kill the Gays Uganda Bill had she not brought it to the attention of the world. I say put her on every show she will do. We'll all be better off because of it.
I don't know what he did You are talking about because I don't usually watch except Rachel Maddow was on.
You have to take these comedians with a grain of salt.That's what they do,doesn't really have a point except comedy.This reminds me of the people who gave president Obama a hard time about meeting with other leaders unless they did this or that first.
I'm told trans folks are seventeen times more likely to be victims of hate crimes (I haven't confirmed this number but I'm sure it's reasonably accurate.) I think "joking" i s not only in poor taste, it feeds those who think it's OK to perpetrate violence against trans people.
Our leaders, and people in the media, have a moral responsibility to be sensitive to, and educated about, the people they're going to make a joke about. Many people, especially bullies, are followers. Give them an inch…
I say, More Rachel Anywhere, Any Time!!! Maybe she didn't defend the subject you wanted handled, but she certainly spreads knowledge and understanding, no matter what topic she tackles. Gimme More!!!
I say, More Rachel Anywhere, Any Time!!! Maybe she didn't defend the subject you wanted handled, but she certainly spreads knowledge and understanding, no matter what topic she tackles. Gimme More!!!
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }