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.