Is it David "Imus" Letterman or is it our fear of offending advertisers?

Note: Click the highlighted words for the YouTube Video links: Last night I watched a different David Letterman, the one who rendered an apology that had obviously been forced upon him from the network over some jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughters. Just one day before, in true Letterman form, the talk show host had offered an apology of sorts, laced up with a revisit of the jokes while clarifying that the joke had been misinterpreted toward Palin's 14 year old daughter as opposed to her 18 year old daughter; the latter having been the subject of much news fodder over recent choices in her life. It was a fitting rebuttal from a man who has used sarcasm for many decades as his source of popularity and humor and regardless of one's views of Palin, falls squarely into the same category of commentary about public figures that we also see on the cover of every supermarket tabloid at the checkout aisle. Certainly Palin had every right to express her upset over the joke, but Letterman certainly had every right to make it, regardless.  And certainly for both the original joke and the first apology joke the audience endorsed the humor, even while the host later claimed that it fell "flat." Last night's apology reminded me of the less recent scolding of Talk Radio's Don Imus over his "nappy headed" comments that seemed, overnight, to deflate him from his celebrated status as radio's curmudgeon and critic, to that of muted purveyor of free speech that had gained him his popularity. And that is what America loves about its shock jocks and brash mouthed talk show hosts; they get to say what we would love to say but cannot get away with, and we assume a degree of immunity upon them due to their advertiser ratings pull.  God, look at the list you have from Michael Savage (getting banned in England), Howard Stern, Bill O'Reilly...the list goes on.   Imus got fired, then passed through the public version of talk show rehab, groveling at the feet of those who had been offended, while slobbering out his new found revelations about discovering their feelings not unlike criminals repent after getting to jail where miraculously they find Jesus.  Only then, after the public flogging was Imus officially forgiven by those he had slurred and allowed back on the radio, albeit a new station and fewer listeners. Why bother? The castrated Imus hasn't got the same appeal to the listening public. We know and he knows that his power is now "lite."  He had been counted on to use his celebrity to stand his ground and his right to make whatever comment he chose, protected by the Constitution so that we can all believe in the liberties we have, but mostly, as with all television, for cheap laughs.  After all, this is America. If the Rutger's women's basketball team felt wronged they should have just done what every other American does; find a lawyer and sue Imus' pants off. After all, isn't that what happened when Johnny Carson made an inappropriate sexual innuendo about Zsa Zsa Gabor and her cat on the Tonight Show, resulting in a lawsuit?  I seem to recall that one some years back.  In Imus' case, because of the racial factor, and with most issues that have any involvement of racial discrimination whether in deed or in comment, litigation usually comes after a severe public flogging for being an insensitive buffoon, after all this is modern day America and racism can't be litigated before it is publicly purged. Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, add other names here of those who used the cheap laugh approach on and off the stage; but I was always under the impression that in America you either lost your fan base, got sued or got dropped. The ass-saving retractions that seem now to follow hardly convince me of some miracle rehabilitation.  Worse, the commentary from the public invariably splits along the same two lines it always has. Understand here that I am not defending the comments or the celebrities; this is a commentary on how we allow our public figures to be all powerful in their voices only to chop them off at the knees at the first sign of potential embarrassment, especially where there are advertising dollars that can be lost. After all, those advertisers are the true power mongers and heaven forbid any business loses the right to push the lies that pervade the advertising world. In short, there is no power; merely illusion and how much money you can suck up before your time on stage is done. Back to Letterman. Was he right to apologize? Critics of Palin will call upon every comment she has made whether it be her Katie Couric interview onwards as reason why, as a public figure, she is fair game. Likewise, the very public out of wedlock pregnancy of her daughter and the soap-opera drama of that relationship seems to make Letterman's remarks fair game and, for at least half the people in the country, hardly made in bad taste; the family seems to be doing enough of that themselves, if you read People Magazine. It was the genius PR move on Palin's to attack the perception that Letterman was referring to the 14 year old daughter instead of the 18 year old daughter, which frankly became the mainstay for getting back at Letterman.  That and whatever political influence Palin may have left after the last campaign seemed enough to ruffle the advertising feathers of CBS. It is all becoming just too PC. Perhaps Letterman should issue a disclaimer with every joke. "The Late Show with David Letterman wants you to know that certain people are to be assumed immune from any commentary that may come from Mr. Letterman:  If you are a minor, a minority, a minority female, overweight, a musician of overweight or minority status, lacking in the appropriate use of language skills like grammar, sentence structure or syntax, residents of states where certain pronunciations illicit the understanding of an implied lack of intelligence, members of fringe religious sects bend on corrupting the morals of youth, all the above categories with affiliations to any political party of the United States or related to any currently licensed legal practitioner operating within the United States, current or former felons with any affiliation to the above classifications and certain other unnamed persons or groups, the Late Show with David Letterman did not, will not, and in no way should be understood to have referred to you in any comment made by Mr. Letterman as intended to be derogatory, racially inflammatory or politically insensitive in any context whether written or spoken." Perhaps then, David Letterman can do what he does best, that a large segment of the country enjoys because of his style of sarcasm and delivery. It is entertainment, pure and simple, like it or not, and the rule of television is that if you do not like it you should just turn it off. What do you think? MisterWriter UPDATE: 6/17/09 - Watching the people protesting outside the Letterman studios, one can clearly see where freedom to speak is sadly lacking in freedom to think. And of course, two wrongs always makes a right!  Watch the insanity HERE.