Deception Secrets: Confessions, Apologies, and Pacifiers—A Quick Lesson From David Letterman…
If you read my post from a couple weeks back about duality (you did, right?) then you already know that, “It lures people into missing your real message.”
Because I know how this stuff works, I’m usually leery of giving you examples that have religious or political components.
But here I go again, breaking my own “rules”.
Why?
Well, 1-because I can’t ignore a great opportunity to give you something you might benefit from, and 2-I’m counting on you to be a cut above the “average” person, who would miss my point and focus on the wrong thing (in this case, politics).
During his Monday evening show, Letterman addressed the controversial joke he made during a monologue the week before.
Whether the joke was in bad taste, or whether it was just an edgy joke that’s been blown of proportion, none of that matters here. What I’m about to give you is simply an analysis of Letterman’s words and whether they amounted to the “apology” that all the news pieces have declared them to be.
Did he give an apology? Let’s take a look at some specifics of what David Letterman said, line by line:
“…it was kind of a coarse joke, there’s no getting around it…”
– For an apology to be seen as sincere, a person must denounce his own conduct; contrition starts with renunciation: It’s a requirement. At this point Letterman does this, and he alludes that there’s no way to defend the joke. But notice he says, “kind of” a course joke. Does he REALLY agree with his critics?
“But I never thought it was (about) anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure, in fact, that she is of legal age, 18.”
Always notice when a person makes a statement to you, then says, “but”:
“I like your shirt, but…”
“That’s a good idea, but…”
“I can be there on Tuesday, but…”
– The word “but” always signals an exception to—if not a complete reversal of—what was just said. In this case, Letterman uses it to transition into a slight defense of himself, making the case that the joke referred to Palin’s 18 year-old daughter, not the 14 year-old (the one actually at the game). This is an effort to lessen his intent.
“…but the joke, really, in and of itself, can’t be defended.”
– Now he says outright that the joke can’t be defended, although he’s already begun trying mitigate his intent.
“I’m wondering, ‘Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?’ I’ve never made jokes like this, as long as we’ve been on the air, 30 long years.”
– Fact is, he did make a joke like this. But he’s planting the seeds for why it really wasn’t the joke everyone thought it was. Public figures have done this before. When caught, sometimes they’ve even re-defined words so they can declare they were technically innocent. Think Bill Clinton.
When I was a cop interviewing suspects, it wasn’t uncommon to hear them say things like, “I wasn’t raised to do things like that,” or “You can ask anybody, they’ll tell you I’m not like that,” or “I’ve never done anything like this before”. When cornered, the guilty often point back to their history, or to people who can vouch for them. This is a technique to gain credibility, and/or make the act seem to be an exception from their normal behavior.
“…and I understand why people would be upset, I would be upset myself.”
– If you want to persuade another person (or a whole bunch of them), empathy is a VERY powerful tool—tell them you understand how they feel. Letterman wisely does this.
“…now I’m beginning to understand what the problem is here, it’s the perception, rather than the intent.”
– Here Letterman claims innocence by pointing to perception as the culprit; his joke was misinterpreted.
“I take full blame for that, I told a bad joke, I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception.”
– Here he takes on responsibility, then immediately goes back to excusing himself by asserting that his intent was absent.
“It was not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault that it was misunderstood… so I would like to apologize… I’m sorry about it, and I’ll try to do better in the future.”
– After much admission, followed by denial, here Letterman finally takes responsibility for your misunderstanding and gives an outright apology. This last part is what he HAD to say in order to placate the public, and—more importantly—his advertisers. But it was hard to do.
At this last part, his manner of speech is less natural than earlier on. It has the ring of a person who is saying what has to be said because it’s been demanded of him, and he wants to be done with it.
This apology Letterman gave on June 15 was far different from the first time he addressed the upset over his joke on a show several days before this. In the video below, he makes light of the controversy, and even tells the jokes again and elicits laughter from the audience throughout.
What you’ll see below is Letterman’s attempt to address the issue in hopes it would suffice as an apology. And though it was widely reported as an apology, it was actually a pacifier that didn’t take:
Hey, it’s rare that you’ll ever hear another person—whether celebrity, spouse, business associate, or anyone else—say, “I did it, I was wrong, and I’m sorry”, and leave it at that.
Rare? Okay, it NEVER happens.
Few people ever confess to anything.
Even fewer give an apology without strings attached.
Unless they’re forced to, of course.
Give me your take on all this, or even tell me I’m wrong: I’m interested in your thoughts, leave a comment and I’ll be sure to respond—thanks…
Tags: apologies, confessions, david letterman, Deception
Been wondering what your take was on the Letterman thing- I think
you nailed it! And I’d add this, I’d say somebody ‘got to him’ between these two interviews? His
whole approach changed 180 in just a few days. Did he change his mind or did somebody change
it for him?
Jim, I think YOU nailed it. Much more contrite during the 6-15-9 show, as opposed to the one days earlier, where he really just used the occasion as another comedy bit, and was even a little snarky toward his critics and Mr. Palin, who he repeatedly called ‘Todd’.
Okay, I know this sounds cynical, but it does seem the like longer someone talks, the more skeptical I get of them. (Instances where a person is defending or explaining their actions.) If you want to say something, just get to it. I’ve found that when a person doesn’t just “Get to it” they are usually just using a bunch of filler to disguise that they aren’t getting to it. Hope that makes sense. Letterman took a long time to get to it.
Great post Jef, thanks for the insights.
Where’s the line between cynical and realistic?
When being realistic sounds too negative, people call it cynicism–but it’s NOT.
Sometimes reality has negative elements. Being able to call it like it is? That’s empowering. Face up, deal with it, and keep moving.
I think you’re point is well made, Kay, I couldn’t say it any better than you have.
So here’s the danger: When they’re being deceptive, the more a person says, the more we subconsciously tend to believe them. Too many places to get distracted, too many things to consider.
Is the lesson, “Beware of big talkers”? YES.
Thanks Kay!
I’ve always believed that when someone says ‘but,’ it negates everything that was said before it. If that was an apology, then the person didn’t really apologize. The other one that get’s me is “I’m sorry if you were offended/hurt.” They aren’t sorry for their actions, just turning the responsibility for the situation back to the other person.
People make mistakes and I believe (quite possibly naively) that the majority of people don’t intentionally set out to hurt people with these mistakes. I have received a few of those ‘no strings apologies’ in my life, and while the apology may not have mended the relationship, I hold great respect for those people.
Great analysis, Jef!
Some great points, Amy. And you hit on something big, too: People don’t often set out to intentionally hurt others. That’s just a by-product of their decision to do what they want in a given moment. They ignore that their actions could 1-be found out, or 2-have delayed consequences.
By the way, you don’t sound like a naive person to me, think you’ve got stuff figured out pretty well!
Thanks for your thoughts, Amy!
When a person is sincere about an apology then he or she will be singleminded about, there won’t be any duality. Most people want to apologize and at the same time want their own side be heard. It takes a lot of humility to make a sincere apology. And you’re right, Jef, most people don’t apologize.
The nice thing about these posts is it helps me look at myself, my motives and my patterns of communication, aside from other people and how and what they communicate to me. We are all a work in progress.
I just want to add that singlemindedness, honesty, and being real are big things to me.
Thanks Jef!
We want it both ways, don’t we? And just like the case with Letterman, if an apology does come it’s usually forced. Apologies are typically just a device to smooth things over. Would they be apologizing if they hadn’t been ‘caught’?
Thanks Jeannie!
A few flaws in reasoning.
If you grab a woman’s behind that dresses exactly like your wife/girlfriend because you believe it to be her, the apology including “BUT I thought you were my (wife/girlfriend)” is not ’strings attached’. Nor is it a negation. Nor is it untrue. Nor is it anything, except the absolute unvarnished truth.
Natural languages are not formal languages.
A = I am happy
B = It is raining
A ^ B, that is A AND B, has one type of meaning, in formal logic.
It can have a completely different meaning, in natural languages.
“I am happy, AND it is raining”
versus
“I am happy, BUT it is raining”
In the former, the implication is (typically) that ‘and’ means ‘because’, as in
“I am happy and (because) it is raining”
In the latter, the implication is (typically) that ‘but’ means ‘even though’, as in
“I am happy but (even though) it is raining”
The use of ‘but’ does not negate the happiness.
“The time is right, and the man arrived late.”
“The time is right, but the man arrived late.”
The time is still right. Either way.
By the way, wasn’t one “Palin girl” ‘underaged’ and knocked-up? Though apparently not, the age of consent in Alaska appears to be 16.
Though apparently so, the Alaskan age of majority is 18. Letterman’s jokes and humor are usually awful now, but the mix-up is understandable, in a contextual sort of way.
I can understand, why some people might think yet another Palin daughter might end up a mother out-of-wedlock before reaching the age of majority. I know nothing about her life or personality, but (but! negating everything! so i do secretly know…!) statistically speaking it seems viable. In any event, Letterman was talking about the 18 year old. He apparently did not know (and, like all of us, did not care) which kid was which. The only reason this requires an “apology”, is because he is ‘high-profile’ with a television show. This entire situation is a non-event.
The only protesters, should be baseball fans.The constant usage of “Todd” was highly amusing.
The earlier video (of Letterman) was not an apology, nor a pacifier. It was an explanation.
“This is your glass? I thought it was my glass! Okay, here, let’s switch.”
Is that an apology? Or a pacifier? The answer is obvious. Neither.
The whole situation would have gone more smoothly, if he had just used the 18-year-old’s name also, within the so-called ‘joke’, whatever her name is. Even now, I still don’t care. Then the mix-up would have been that much more obvious, and neither an “apology”, nor a “pacifier”, would have been ‘required’. Just an explanation.
The obvious problem with that, is that neither he, nor anyone else, cares what any of their names are.
Except for Todd.
You make a great case for how ‘but’ doesn’t introduce a negation of what preceded. The problem? You’re relying on the technicalities of language, the ‘rules’ of proper technical English.
For the sake of our discussion, I’ll stipulate to that… you’re right.
But here’s the little twist: People function outside the rules… whatever they are. You’re right, natural and formal are different, and the way people typically use the word but, is to subconsciously transition to a statement that’s not consistent with what they just said. Functionality always trumps formality.
Could there be times when something like your bottom-grabbing statement would apply? First, I don’t think “BUT I thought you were my (wife/girlfriend)” is the natural way a person would say this, but I get your point. I’ll allow there might be times when things could play out to this effect.
Hey, it’s hard to find rules that never have exceptions. So if this one ever does, here’s what I’m counting on: My readers are sharp enough to know the difference.
Thanks for your take on this, much appreciated, come again!
-jef
Wow, thorough analysis there.. Here’s what I think:
1. The joke was not called for. Was it funny? Maybe. Was it wrong? Yes. Especially if he didn’t do the research on who he was talking about (older vs younger daughter).
2. It’s good that he apologized.
3. Could it have been a better apology? Sure. But we’re all human. It’s also nice to see humanness in an apology. I’ve never had someone say “I’m sorry” and leave it at that. It doesn’t happen.
4. I hadn’t watched Letterman in months before this happen. Coincidence that his ratings went up and that Palin is suddenly back on TV? Hmmmmmm…. Maybe they planned it
And no one’s touched on your #4 yet: Was there a method to the madness? Is it coincidence this all happened the week that Conan O’Brien hit the Tonight Show stage?
Celebrities nearly always benefit from bad press. They also benefit from death-(career-wise anyway)-think Elvis)
Other than dying, celebrities get press from: 1-Doing something outrageous/criminal (think Phil Spector and OJ) or 2-Throwing a fit (saying or doing something contorversial)
Trainwrecks sell newspapers, right?
Or they did when people bought newspapers. Hmmm. Anyway… Great thoughs from http://www.socialnerdia.com Thanks!