Site Presented By
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
Letterman stayed out of the brawl over whether he'd replace Ted Koppel's "Nightline," but his minions' manipulations still made the late-night king look bad.
Mar 13, 2002 | No more drama. The late-night war -- which pitted a restless David Letterman against his bosses at CBS and, indirectly, against ABC's Ted Koppel -- ended Monday night when the host announced he was taking the money and staying.
Letterman handled the situation deftly, with lots of his aw, shucks Hoosier charm. "Can you believe there are two networks fighting over this crap -- crazy, ain't it?" he joked during Monday night's telecast. "I've never been in a situation like this in my life. The whole thing has made me dizzy."
Bowing out on talks with ABC, Letterman basically took pity on Koppel and "Nightline," telling viewers that he didn't have the heart to kick the late-night anchor off the air, even if Letterman's would-be bosses at ABC did. Again, Letterman showcased his trademark ability to articulate well and simply, which is what makes him such a talented broadcaster: "The point is, Ted -- what he has done and his contributions to American culture -- speak for themselves. He is one of a very small group that represents the highest echelon of broadcast achievement, without question."
Certainly ABC News chief Dave Westin, not to mention Koppel and his top-notch staff, appreciated the vote of confidence. Letterman will likely be toasted and cheered in coming days for his decision, partly for having the class and tact that Disney chairman Michael Eisner and ABC president Bob Iger so obviously lacked over the last 10 days.
But more important, he'll be applauded because we love him. Because Dave's funny and Dave's not a phony. But Letterman shouldn't get off so easy this time around. This whole media sideshow was a manufactured one, and seems to have been concocted by Letterman's camp, the only party that benefited from the March 1 leak to the New York Times. (Question: Did the paper's original 1,200-word scoop, breaking the Letterman-may-go scenario, establish some sort of New York Times record for a Page 1 news story that didn't contain a single on-the-record quote?)
Almost certainly executed with the boss's approval, the maneuver was carried out with the express intent of making lots of other people look bad, while lining Letterman's pockets with even more cash than he can possibly count.
There's nothing wrong with playing hardball during contract negotiations. Letterman would have been a fool not to test the waters, and of course he doesn't personally dirty his hands with the sausage-making process. But by going to the press in such a petty, vengeful and selfish way, his team showed a distinct lack of class. Yet Letterman came out looking like a champ -- for now, anyway.
