Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 415–421

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Image repair in late night comedy:

Letterman and the Palin joke controversy
Josh Compton a,∗ , Brett Miller b
a
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States
b
Southwest Baptist University, Bolivar, MO, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: David Letterman, host of The Late Show, told a joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter during one of
Received 11 March 2011 his nightly monologues. During the ensuing controversy, Letterman offered two extended
Received in revised form 25 July 2011 statements about the joke. Approaching Letterman’s responses from the perspective of
Accepted 5 August 2011
Benoit’s image repair typology reveals three primary strategies: denial, mortification, and
corrective action. While Letterman’s first attempt to resolve the controversy failed, his sec-
Keywords:
ond attempt was largely successful. Implications for public relations image repair strategies
Image repair
Image restoration
are offered.
Public relations © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Late night comedy

Late night television talk shows and politics have a symbiotic relationship: hosts mine the political landscape for things
to ridicule in monologues, skits, and one-on-one banter; politicians play along with the humor by either brushing it off or
even appearing on the programs to parade their own senses of humor (see Compton, 2008, for a review). But a specific late
night comedy-political controversy during the summer of 2009 did not follow this established pattern. David Letterman
cracked a joke about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s daughter that would ultimately result in an 8-min long
apology. Apologies such as these are “exceedingly rare, if not unprecedented” (Gay, 2009, para. 5). Thus, the comments rise
in significance above the typical thrust and parry of late night comedy, becoming, what Ryan (1982) described as, a speech
set of attack and defense.
Letterman’s controversial joke mentioned Sarah Palin’s visit to New York City: “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin
at the Yankees game. During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez” (cited in Collins, 2009,
para. 3). Later, Letterman would explain that he intended to joke about Palin’s oldest daughter, Bristol, an 18-year-old single
mother. But it was Palin’s younger daughter, 14-year-old Willow, who was attending the game with her mother.
Following the joke, the rhetorical back-and-forth between Palin and Letterman helped boost the Late Show’s ratings. The
week of the second image-repair attempt, Letterman had higher ratings than The Tonight Show for the first time in more
than three-and-a-half years (Kissell, 2009). As one report put it: “Sarah Palin would no doubt be horrified by the idea, but
there’s a chance she could become the same boon to David Letterman’s career that Hugh Grant was to Jay Leno’s” (“Could
Palin,” 2009, para. 1). On the other hand, the feud also increased Palin’s visibility, turning the spotlight back to Palin with
each response.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: josh.compton@dartmouth.edu (J. Compton).

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.002
416 J. Compton, B. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 415–421

1. The attack

Considering Ryan’s (1982) claim that we cannot fully understand apologia (defense) without considering the specific
kategoria (attack), Benoit (1995) argues that individuals are fundamentally motivated to rehabilitate damaged reputations
when they believe an audience finds them responsible for an act perceived as offensive. Benoit and his colleagues (Benoit &
Dorries, 1996; Benoit & Wells, 1998; Miller, 2002) clarify: Rhetorical actors are seen as more responsible if they committed the
act previously, the act was premeditated, they knew the likely consequences, or they benefited from the act; the perception
of offensiveness increases if damages were extensive, negative effects were persistent, the act affected the salient audience,
the act was a case of inconsistency or hypocrisy, the victims were helpless, or the accused were obligated to protect the
victims.
The accusations following Letterman’s joke focused exclusively on offensiveness. The Palins responded to Letterman’s
joke with sharply worded statements:
. . .Laughter incited by sexually-perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old
girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding
what the rest of America understands – that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl,
who could be anyone’s daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older
men who use and abuse others (“Statements from Sarah and Todd Palin,” 2009).
Todd Palin added: “Any ‘jokes’ about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it and I believe the rest of the
world knows it, too” (“Statements from Sarah and Todd Palin,” 2009). These comments focus little attention on Letterman’s
responsibility for the act; that seems assumed. Instead, attacks cast his actions as offensive. The victim is portrayed as helpless.
Repeating the reference to their daughter as a 14-year-old, the Palins make clear that the joke’s target is underage. By referring
to “Alaskans,” “the rest of America,” and “the rest of the world,” the Palins broaden the offense to a wider audience. Finally,
characterizing Letterman’s comments as “sexually-perverted,” “disgusting,” “inappropriate,” “despicable,” and contributing
to “the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men,” the Palins highlight the act’s extensive damage.
The Palins were not alone in attacking Letterman. Others condemned the joke, calling it, among other things, “phenome-
nally stupid” (Simon, 2009, para. 8). One sponsor pulled its advertising from the CBS website (Strobel, 2009), and Letterman’s
perceived likeability, believability, and sincerity dropped (“Majority say,” 2009). In response, Letterman addressed the joke
during two broadcasts.

2. The defense

Benoit (1995) draws on extant research (e.g., Scott & Lyman, 1968; Ware & Linkugel, 1973) to advance a typology of
five primary image repair strategies. These strategies are denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective
action, and mortification. Denial either involves claiming an act did not occur or that the accused did not do it (simple
denial) or adding a reference to who is responsible for the act in question (shifting the blame). When evading responsibility,
the accused admits that the act occurred but denies accountability. This strategy has four tactics: provocation (the act was
in response to another bad act), defeasibility (the act was out of one’s control), accident, and good intentions. Reducing
offensiveness means acknowledging an act occurred but denying the act’s severity. This strategy has six tactics: bolstering
(highlighting good attributes), minimization (downplaying the act’s offensiveness), differentiation (comparing the act to
worse acts), transcendence (putting the act in context of higher considerations), and attacking the accuser. With corrective
action, the accused commits to repairing the damage or preventing its recurrence. Mortification is an expression of regret
(see Benoit, 1995, 2000, for more expansive treatments of strategies and tactics).
Image repair in entertainment does not always parallel political and corporate image repair discourse (Benoit, 1997).
A summary of entertainment image repair scholarship reveals the efficacy of mortification (Benoit, 1997), the importance
of sincere apologies (Brazeal, 2008), and the possibility of attacking one’s accuser (Benoit & Anderson, 1996; Benoit & Nill,
1998). Entertainers are more prone to use mortification, since they are often less concerned with liabilities of legal culpability
or campaign management (Benoit, 1997). One entertainment image repair study in particular warrants a closer look. Benoit
(1997) analyzed the actor Hugh Grant’s image repair attempts following his arrest for lewd conduct with a prostitute. Grant
was scheduled to appear on five television interview programs—including The Tonight Show and The Late Show—to promote
a movie. He used the forums to respond to the scandal. Grant said he was sorry (mortification), his demeanor accentuated
what people already liked about him (bolstering), he narrowed the scope of his offense to this specific arrest (denial), and he
criticized the media, particularly the British media (attacking accusers). Benoit concludes that Grant was generally successful
with his strategies.
Of course, the Letterman–Palin joke controversy is in a context that involves politics and entertainment. Further, the
humor angle of the Letterman–Palin verbal feud adds another layer of complexity to image repair discourse (Liu, 2007,
2008). Humor offers a light-hearted approach that may not always fit with the severity of the offensiveness of the act or the
sincerity of the image repair strategy.
We do have some insight from existing image research in political/entertainment/humor contexts, including Benoit and
Anderson’s (1996) analysis of the debate between Dan Quayle and the fictional television character, Murphy Brown. Then
Vice-President Quayle criticized Candace Bergen’s fictional character—who on the television show portrayed an unmarried
 J. Compton, B. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 415–421 417

woman choosing to have a child. Benoit and Anderson note how humor gave Murphy Brown greater latitude in employing
image repair strategies.
Paletz (1990) observed: “[I]n contrast to autocrats, whose vengeance can be swift and sure, rulers in democracies are
usually unable summarily to punish the people who devise and direct humor at them.”(p. 484). While Palin was not able
to “punish” Letterman, she did attack his humor (and consequently, his image). Letterman’s joke, Palin’s criticism, and
Letterman’s responses form a speech set that negotiates boundaries of politics, entertainment, and humor.

3. Letterman’s first attempt

Letterman’s first attempt to defuse the controversy occurred during the June 10 broadcast of Late Show. First, Letterman
cracked a few jokes about the controversy. For example, in response to Sarah Palin’s accusation that these jokes were
“sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity,” Letterman replied: “I am not a celebrity. I’m 62 years
old, but I’m not a celebrity” (cited in Moore, 2009, para. 13). But Letterman also offered a fairly lengthy explanation. His
primary strategy was denial. After mentioning that his joke was about “Sarah Palin and her daughter, the 18-year-old girl,
who is—her name is Bristol,” he stated:
These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex
of any description with a 14-year-old girl. I mean, look at my record. It has never happened. I don’t think it’s funny. I
would never think it was funny. I wouldn’t put it in a joke. . .
I’m not necessarily proud of these jokes. We do stuff all the time and our objective here is to get a laugh, and thank
God we don’t have to go to the Hague and the World Court to defend them. It’s a joke and that’s all it’s supposed to be
(cited in DeMarco, 2009, para. 14–15).
Letterman concluded his explanation with a clear delineation:
Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous
sex? No (cited in DeMarco, 2009, para. 15).
During the same broadcast, Letterman also invited Palin to appear on his show, “you and Todd as my guests, or leave Todd
at home. . .” (cited in DeMarco, 2009, para. 16). In his first defense, Letterman wove humor into his image repair attempts.
Part of Letterman’s strategy suggests differentiation, of separating his joke from a much more offensive type of joke (“I
would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl.”) We also see evidence
of bolstering (“I mean, look at my record. It has never happened.”). Yet the prevailing theme of this first response to the
joke controversy is denial as a means of reducing offensiveness. In sum, Letterman’s strategy was to say, “I didn’t really do
anything wrong, and the little harm I might have done wasn’t what you think it was.”

4. Reactions to the first attempt

Letterman’s first attempt to quell the controversy was not effective. One editorial described him as “fumbl[ing] through a
patently insincere ‘apology”’ (“Letterman’s late-night,” 2009, para. 4). Another said Letterman’s apology “did little to satisfy
critics” (Collins, 2009, para. 4). The National Organization for Women named David Letterman a member of its Media Hall of
Shame (Collins, 2009). Other observers characterized this first attempt at image repair as “half-baked” (Adams, 2009, para.
7) “a kinda-sorta, half apology” (Schlesinger, 2009, para. 2), and “a limp semi-apology” (Bykofsky, 2009, para. 3). Instead of
diminishing criticism, Letterman’s first attempt intensified it.
Responding to Matt Lauer’s question on the Today Show about Letterman’s explanation for the misunderstood joke, Palin
said:
I would say that you and anybody else are extremely naive to believe that very convenient excuse of David Letterman’s
the other day. It took a couple of days for him to think of that excuse. Oh, no, he wasn’t talking about my daughter
who was there with me at the game, the 14-year-old; he was talking about some other daughter (cited in Rhee, 2009,
para. 8).
Also in the interview, Palin further addressed offensiveness by accusing Letterman’s joke of suggesting “it’s OK to talk
about statutory rape. It’s not cool. It’s not funny” (cited in DeMarco, 2009, para. 2). During an appearance with Wolf Blitzer on
CNN, Palin characterized the premise of Letterman’s joke as “pretty perverted” (“Sarah Palin,” 2009, para. 48) and indicated
that it did not matter whether he was telling the joke about Willow or Bristol—“Regardless of which daughter, it was
inappropriate” (“Sarah Palin,” 2009, para. 52). So, not only was Letterman’s first attempt at image repair unsuccessful, it
invited an even stronger depiction of offensiveness.
As to the invitation from Letterman to appear on his show, Palin’s spokesperson responded: “The Palins have no intention
of providing a ratings boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show. Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from
David Letterman” (“Statement from Meghan Stapleton,” 2009).
Palin’s reaction discounts or ignores Letterman’s first attempt at image repair: denial mixed with mild differentiation. In
the Stapleton statement, she also makes another attack on Letterman: “[I]t would be wise to keep Willow away from David
418 J. Compton, B. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 415–421

Letterman” (“Statement from Meghan Stapleton,” 2009). With this response, the Palins widen the attack on Letterman’s
image from accusations that he is insensitive to what could be interpreted as speculations about his propriety.

5. Letterman’s second attempt

Letterman offered his second apology on June 16. Letterman began this response to the Palin joke controversy in a way
that paralleled his first:
I’ve been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week. . .[T]here was a joke
that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse
joke. There’s no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the
show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18 (cited in Kurtzman, 2009, para. 5).
In the opening statements, Letterman shifts from denial to a more complex strategy, introducing arguments of clear
differentiation and defeasibility. We also see an argument of bolstering. Letterman recounts how he engaged in fact checking
before the show to confirm that the target of the joke was an adult.
In his next statements, Letterman further abandons defending the joke and intensifies defeasibility:
But the joke really, in and of itself, can’t be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They’re angry at me because
they said, ‘How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?’ And I had,
honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the Governor and
I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani. And I really should have made the joke about Rudy (cited in
Kurtzman, 2009, para. 6).
Letterman shifts from a defense of the joke to a defense of his intent with the joke. First, after giving voice to his critics,
he reiterates that he was not telling the joke about Palin’s younger daughter. He highlights his lack of knowledge of the
situation. Letterman ends this part of his response with a joke about Rudy Giuliani, eliciting audience laughter and possibly
serving a bolstering effect. He goes on to reiterate the same strategies, then voice his dilemma: “Well, what can I do to help
people understand that I would never make a joke like this?” (cited in Kurtzman, 2009, para. 7) His first answer to his own
question is to bolster:
I’ve never made jokes like this as long as we’ve been on the air, 30 long years, and you can’t really be doing jokes like
that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself (cited in Kurtzman, 2009, para. 7).
The first strategy makes a logical argument—that a joke “like this” would be uncharacteristic of his record. This works to
set up the differentiation claim. But Letterman also bolsters and creates audience identification with his comment that he
understands peoples’ anger, that “I would be upset myself.”
Next, Letterman offers an even more specific characterization of the attacks on him, followed by his analysis of the
controversy:
And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer NewsHour—this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about
how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, ‘Oh, boy, now I’m beginning to
understand what the problem is here. It’s the perception rather than the intent.’ It doesn’t make any difference what
my intent was, it’s the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good
joke. And I’m certainly—[audience applause]—thank you. Well, my responsibility—I take full blame for that (cited in
Kurtzman, 2009, para. 8).
With these remarks, Letterman refutes his preceding image repair strategy of denial: “It doesn’t make any difference
what my intent was, it’s the perception.”
Letterman ends his statement on the joke controversy with two new strategies:
I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the
perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told
that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood. . .. So I would like to
apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and
everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you very
much (cited in Kurtzman, 2009, para. 8–9).
His mortification move takes ownership for the joke and for its misinterpretation. He also directs his apology to the Palin
family. Finally, Letterman ends his remarks with a commitment to corrective action: “. . .I’ll try to do better in the future.”

6. Reactions to the second attempt

Letterman’s second attempt at image repair was far more successful than his first. His second apology was called “contrite”
(Collins, 2009, para. 6) and “an extraordinary mea culpa” (Gay, 2009, para. 1). A “Fire David Letterman” protest outside the
 J. Compton, B. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 415–421 419

theater in New York drew only about a dozen people (“Palin OK,” 2009). One study found 60% of viewers found his apology
sincere (“Majority say,” 2009), and Letterman saw a slight increase in his perceived likeability, believability, and sincerity
(“Majority say,” 2009). Sarah Palin posted her response to Letterman’s apology on her Facebook page:
Of course it’s accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who ‘joke’ about public displays
of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve. Letterman certainly has the right to ‘joke’ about whatever he wants to,
and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men
putting their lives on the line for us to secure America’s Right to Free Speech—in this case, may that right be used to
promote equality and respect (“Governor’s reaction,” 2009, n.p.).
Palin’s statement—while accepting Letterman’s apology—continues a program of attack on Letterman.
Nevertheless, not everyone considered Letterman’s second apology effective. Some criticism seemed to stem from parti-
san ideology. Marybeth Hicks, writing for The Washington Times, panned Letterman, his apology, and the original joke: “It’s
an arms-length accountability that makes you seem heroic just for feigning regret” (para. 13). Other criticism approached
the controversy from a feminist framework. For example, Campbell (2009) noted that it was disheartening that Letterman
“considers it acceptable to tell sex jokes about a politician’s teenage daughter because she is 18 rather than 14” (para. 2).
Still others criticized the apology from a different angle—that no apology should have been offered. One journalist said of
the apology: “Very gentlemanly, Dave. But you caved. Politics is mean. Comedy is meaner” (Strobel, 2009, para. 33).

7. Discussion

In his second statement about the Palin joke controversy, Letterman apologized and promised to do better. These image
repair strategies stand in contrast to other celebrities’ attempts to restore image. Hugh Grant and Terrell Owens apologized,
but neither offered corrective action (Benoit, 1997; Brazeal, 2008). And Letterman could not attack his accusers—a strategy
that other celebrities have found successful (Hugh Grant, Benoit, 1997). The basis of the attack on Letterman’s image was
that he was attacking. Further, Benoit (1997) notes that Grant did not have to worry about other celebrities intensifying the
attacks on his image, unlike politicians who have partisan opponents. But in the Letterman/Palin feud, entertainment and
politics merged, and Palin continued attacking Letterman’s joke. In some ways, Palin’s responses hurt her own image. The
line, “it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman,” in particular drew attention and criticism. When Matt
Lauer asked Palin to explain this statement, Palin responded: “[T]ake it however you want to take it. It is a comment that
came from the heart. . .” (cited in Roeper, 2009, para. 10). But others did find this particular response inappropriate. Roeper
(2009) wrote: “So it’s deplorable to make a joke about a teenage girl’s pregnancy, but it’s OK to respond to that joke with
a clear implication the joke-teller is a sexual predator?” (para. 11). Others took aim at the general way Palin handled the
incident. Simon (2009), for example, noted of the jokes: “She demagogued the issue and said things even more ungainly and
exploitive than his original jokes” (para. 13).
The back and forth between Letterman and Palin shows how attacks and defenses are not always static analogs or neat
rhetorical packages with clear provocations and denouements; they have flexible boundaries. In many cases, politicians
benefit by playing along with the comedians. For example, George W. Bush embraced late night comedy during Campaign
2000—faster and to greater effect than his opponent, Al Gore—and benefited from a perception that he was approachable,
humble, and funny (Smith & Voth, 2002). Palin, on the other hand, rejected the late night joking—and she rejected it repeatedly
and with intensity.
Letterman also tried to limit the attack against him. He characterized the attacks as: “They’re angry at me because they
said, ‘How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?”’ This reflects Hugh
Grant’s strategy of keeping the scope of attacks on his image to his arrest (Benoit, 1997), employing a form of denial. Further,
there was evidence that this was, indeed, the basis of the outrage with the Letterman–Palin feud. Other comedians told
jokes about Bristol when her pregnancy was announced, including Jay Leno, Jon Stewart and Conan O’Brien (Farhi, 2009b).
Saturday Night Live referenced it, too, and Palin appeared as a guest on the program weeks later (Farhi, 2009b). According to
the Center for Media and Public Affairs, Letterman told fewer jokes about Bristol’s pregnancy than many of his competitors
(Farhi, 2009b).
Humor both helped and complicated Letterman’s image repair discourse. For one thing, attempted humor was a critical
part of the basis of the image attack—the original joke about Palin and her daughter. At one point in his second response
to the controversy, Letterman said, “And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good joke.”
Jokes depend on an element of surprise, and “one can. . .ruin a joke when one has to explain it to someone who did not
understand it” (Speier, 1975/1998, p. 1362). Yet humor can also be a strategy of image restoration (Smith & Voth, 2002).
Speier’s (1975/1998) observed: “Humor weakens an audience’s defenses and makes it more amenable to persuasion” (p.
1356). Humor has been identified in previous image repair attempts, including Newt Gingrich’s use of humor when attacking
his accusers during his book deal controversy (Kennedy & Benoit, 1997). Liu (2007, 2008) has argued that humor was not
an effective strategy to reduce offensiveness in Bush’s speeches post-Katrina or in Senator George Allen’s interactions with
the press answering questions about Jewish ancestry. Letterman seemed to successfully incorporate a few mild jokes in his
second response to the joke controversy (e.g., “And I really should have made the joke about Rudy.”).
Not all evidence, however, points to complete success for Letterman. A Rasmussen poll found that Letterman’s approval
fell from 49% in May to 41% in June, and 64% of Americans said politicians’ children should be off-limits in late night comedy
420 J. Compton, B. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 415–421

(Schlesinger, 2009). As Farhi (2009a) noted: “Letterman strayed into dangerous territory when he decided to poke fun
at a public figure’s child” (para. 15). However, by focusing more of his defense on reducing offensiveness, mortification,
and corrective action, rather than evading responsibility, he completed a program of defense that was at least moderately
successful.
It is difficult to classify the war-of-words between Letterman and Palin. The speech set had shades of politics,
humor, and public address, crossing realms of entertainment, news, and word-of-mouth communication. Letterman’s first
attempt—limited primarily to denial and humor—fell flat. His second attempt, however, used two of the most effective strate-
gies of image repair (Benoit, 1995): mortification and corrective action. The long-term effects of his decision to apologize
are unclear. Future scholarship should assess whether a comedian’s decision to apologize to his target affects the tone and
content of subsequent humor.

References

Adams, G. (2009, June 17). Letterman grovels after sex joke about Palin’s daughter [Electronic version]. The Independent (p. 20). Retrieved from LexisNexis
Academic database.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Hugh Grant’s image restoration discourse: An actor apologizes. Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 251–267.
Benoit, W. L. (2000). Another visit to the theory of image restoration strategies. Communication Quarterly, 48, 40–44.
Benoit, W. L., & Anderson, K. K. (1996). Blending politics and entertainment: Dan Quayle versus Murphy Brown. The Southern Communication Journal, 62(1),
73–85.
Benoit, W. L., & Dorries, B. (1996). Dateline NBC’s persuasive attack of Wal-Mart. Communication Quarterly, 44, 463–477.
Benoit, W. L., & Nill, D. M. (1998). Oliver Stone’s defense of JFK. Communication Quarterly, 46(2), 127–143.
Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1998). An analysis of three image repair discourses on Whitewater. Journal of Public Advocacy, 3, 21–37.
Brazeal, L. (2008). The image repair strategies of Terrell Owens. Public Relations Review, 34(2), 145–150.
Bykofsky, S. (2009, June 18). Palin daughter joke a real stupid Letterman trick [Electronic version]. The Philadelphia Daily News (p. 9). Retrieved from
LexisNexis Academic database.
Campbell, C. C. (2009, June 18). What happened to sisterhood? [Electronic version]. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (p. A15). Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic
database.
Collins, S. (2009, June 16). Letterman apologizes for Palin joke; detractors remain angry [Electronic version]. Los Angeles Times, D1. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/entertainment/et-letterman16.
Compton, J. (2008). More than laughing? Survey of political humor effects research. In J. C. Baumgartner, & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and
American politics in the media age (pp. 39–63). New York: Routledge.
Could Palin flap be Letterman’s Hugh Grant? (2009, June 13). Associated Press. Retrieved from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31345401/ns/today-
entertainment/t/could-palin-flap-be-lettermans-hugh-grant/.
DeMarco, J. (2009, June 12). Palin: Letterman owes apology to young women. TODAY.com. Retrieved from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/
id/31275358/ns/today-today people/t/palin-letterman-owes-apology-young-women/.
Farhi, P. (2009a, June 13). Letterman sends no regrets [Electronic version]. The Washington Post (p. C1). Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.
Farhi, P. (2009b, June 16). Palin gag? Comedy’s all in the mis-timing [Electronic version]. The Washington Post (p. C1). Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic
database.
Gay, V. (2009, June 17). ‘I’m sorry,’ says Letterman [Electronic version]. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (p. A18). Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.
Governor’s reaction regarding Letterman’s apology (2009, June 16). Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note id=92763838434.
Kennedy, K., & Benoit, W. L. (1997). The Newt Gingrich book deal controversy: Self-defense rhetoric. The Southern Communication Journal, 62(3),
197–216.
Kissell, R. (2009, June 26). Palin row boosts Letterman to win [Electronic version]. Daily Variety (p. 3). Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic.
Kurtzman, D. (2009, June 16). Letterman apologizes to Palin for joke about daughter. About.com. Retrieved from
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2009/06/16/letterman-apologizes-to-palin-for-joke-about-daughter.htm.
Letterman’s late-night gaffe [Electronic version]. (2009, June 17). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/opinion/ed-
letterman17.
Liu, B. F. (2007). President Bush’s major post-Katrina speeches: Enhancing image repair discourse theory applied to the public sector. Public Relations Review,
33(1), 40–48.
Liu, B. F. (2008). From aspiring presidential candidate to accidental racist? An analysis of Senator George Allen’s image repair during his 2006 reelection
campaign. Public Relations Review, 34, 331–336.
Majority say Letterman’s apology to Palin was sincere after viewing video [Electronic version] (2009, June 17). PR Newswire. Retrieved from LexisNexis
Academic database.
Miller, B. A. (2002). Divine apology: The discourse of religious image restoration. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Moore, F. (2009, June 12). Letterman hunts for jokes in Palin feud [Electronic version]. USA Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-06-11-letterman-palin N.htm.
Paletz, D. L. (1990). Political humor and authority: From support to subversion. International Political Science Review, 11(4), 483–493.
Palin OK with Dave’s apology [Electronic version] (2009, June 17). Newsday (p. A12). Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.
Rhee, F. (2009, June 12). Palin blasts Letterman. Boston.com. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/06/palin
blasts le.html.
Roeper, R. (2009, June 15). Letterman was tasteless, Palin was no better [Electronic version]. Chicago Sun Times (p. 11). Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic
database.
Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 254–261.
Sarah Palin versus David Letterman (2009, June 13). The Situation Room [Television news program]. Retrieved from http://transcripts.
cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/13/sitroom.01.html.
Scott, M. H., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.
Schlesinger, R. (2009, June 16). David Letterman apologizes to Sarah Palin for A-Rod joke [Electronic version]. USNEWS.com. Retrieved from LexisNexis
Academic database.
Simon, J. (2009, June 16). Palin jokes, reaction out of line [Electronic version]. Buffalo News (p. C1). Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.
Smith, C., & Voth, B. (2002). The role of humor in political argument: How ‘strategery’ and ‘lockboxes’ changed a political campaign. Argumentation &
Advocacy, 39, 110–129.
Speier, H. (1998). Wit and politics: An essay on laughter and power. (R. Jackall, Trans.), The American Journal of Sociology, 103(5), 1352–1401 (Original work
published 1975)
 J. Compton, B. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 415–421 421

Statement from Meghan Stapleton (2009, June 11). Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note id=91081033434&comments.
Statements from Sarah and Todd Palin (2009, June 10). Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note id=90735023434.
Strobel, M. (2009, June 17). Top 10 white flags. The Toronto Sun. Retrieved from http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/mike strobel/2009/06/
17/9822116-sun.html.
Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59,
273–283.