Why Is CBS Trying To Take Down Letterman Revelation Video?
from the what-good-does-it-do? dept
Last week, soon after the news broke that David Letterman had confessed, on air, to a variety of affairs with staffers, following a blackmail attempt about those affairs, Peter Kafka over at AllthingsD pointed to a YouTube video of the 10 minute revelation, noting that he expected CBS to be playing wac-a-mole in trying to force all of the clips offline. And, indeed, that's exactly what's happening. CBS has apparently been sending takedown after takedown to YouTube to get the clip offline. This is odd for a few reasons. First, CBS is actually one of the few TV networks to actually like YouTube, and use it regularly to its own advantage. Way back in 2006, the company announced that tests showed that when it put clips on YouTube, it resulted in more viewership, not less.So why take down all these clips?
The anonymously sourced explanation in the article is just that there was a request from Letterman's production company to CBS not to put that clip online. I can see why that request was made in the first place (who wants that embarrassing clip up there...) but it still doesn't make much sense once you think about it. If Letterman didn't want that video out there, then why discuss it at all on the show? The show went out to millions of people. It's pretty silly to then pretend it doesn't exist at all. All it really does is call that much more attention to the situation. Meanwhile, the clips keep going up, and employees at both CBS and YouTube have to waste a ton of time repeatedly taking them down... And, in the end, the clips will end up on other sites anyway. If anyone wants to see the Letterman explanation, they'll see it. So why not put it up on the official CBS/Letterman feed and deal with it that way?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: david letterman, takedown, videos
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
simple answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can see why they would want to pull the video. But I can also understand that it's just for show. They can't not know that there had to be thousands of people with DVRs watching it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason it's the default
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh life is just GRAND
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh life is just GRAND
(little known fact: firefox seems to want to correct "women's" into "womenfolk's". Strange. Has anyone ever even heard the term "womenfolk's"?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh life is just GRAND
Obviously society is crumbling at it's very foundation. Your logic is sound, and I believe everyone here would agree.
You are a gentleman and a scholar and I can only hope that you would accept this humble offer of my sincerest honors.
Again. Brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh life is just GRAND
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh life is just GRAND
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Size does matter
At least for now it does not appear to be a case of sexual harassment or unwanted advances as none of the women have ever filed a claim or protest (for what ever reason the relationships appeared consensual).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Size does matter
He could have said, "I have something serious to talk about for a minute, so please bear with me, blah blah blah". Instead he was half glib, half serious, and if I was in the audience I would have been searching for the nearest exit. The whole thing was just creepy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Letterman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dave Letterman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i dont watch letterman, this wont make me watch letterman but now i know that he screws his staffers and im still not going to watch letterman.
so had they not tried to force the videos off, i would have never heard of this thing and yet, i am still not going to watch letterman. nothing but bad came from this move from my angle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now I'll Watch Letterman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5357358n&tag=api
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrant Stupidity Probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Perceptions
When Letterman outlined the scheme in a very public way he created a virtually indelible perception of his innocence. Right or wrong, this placed the accused in an unenviable position of guilt by celebrity accusation.
In other words, a well known celebrity states very publicly (to a millions of ppl) that a specific individual has attempting to extort money from him through blackmail.
Without giving the allegedly accused "blackmailer" a timely opportunity to refute allegations, it not only becomes virtually impossible to find an unbiased jury, but inevitably ends up as another case tried in the public media.
Regardless of who you believe, guilty or not, due process never occurs in a vacuum. But having a persistent and ever expanding message concerning someone's viewpoint can't help but sway any argument. Granted, it may already be too late but the defense team needed to have the video taken down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]