What the fu... Was that Miss Jackson's..?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Subby

If you replace the "God" with "Extra Cheesy Tater Tots" then I completely agree with you...

I heart this post.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Subby

You know a lot about parenting. You should write a book.

I'm pointing out hipocrasy.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

dola, let your kid go to a PG-13 movie and they'll see the exact same things... even PG movies have everything but the nipples.

And that's why they won't be going to a PG-13 movie until they get to, say, 13

Read the parents' comments here, they are talking about 4 - 9 year olds. And they are a little young to be watching MTV. CBS should have known better than to bring MTV to a primetime TV broadcast.

There was no way I was watching the halftime show when I heard what the lineup was. My wife and I turned on Carol Burnette reruns on TVLand and enjoyed halftime as a result.

[Easy Mac]

do you normally let your children watch prime time TV? Its the same thing.

[Easy Mac]

good, change the channel. Is it that hard to grab the remote when you don't agree with something on TV, or is it easier to just bitch about it?

Not you gst, since you changed the channel, but to the others who just let it sit there while your kids were watching.

[CamEdwards]

yes, you can change the channel. Or you can complain that something like this shouldn't be on in prime time to begin with.

I know you're passionate about a great number of things,which is why I can't believe you're advocating apathy.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

good, change the channel. Is it that hard to grab the remote when you don't agree with something on TV, or is it easier to just bitch about it?

Not you gst, since you changed the channel, but to the others who just let it sit there while your kids were watching.

I think the point is, the Super Bowl is played on a Sunday night, early enough so that kids can watch most of it. It's clearly billed as a "gather the family around the TV, once-a-year sporting event." There's an expectation of what the programming will be, given the nature of the broadcast. I don't have a problem changing the channel if I don't like what I see, but on the other hand, I shouldn't be forced to make that choice - or have to scrutinize every second of the programming - because of the inappropriate programming they chose to air.

I'm not looking for a revival of The Sound of Music, but I also think it's reasonable to expect blatant sex to not be a part of the show. Years ago, you had to switch to MTV to see smut during halftime. Now, CBS hires MTV to produce the halftime. That's irresponsible. But hey, it's good business, since both CBS and MTV are owned by Viacom.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

yes, you can change the channel. Or you can complain that something like this shouldn't be on in prime time to begin with.

I know you're passionate about a great number of things,which is why I can't believe you're advocating apathy.

Isn't apathy not changing the channel in the first place when you find something you think you may be offended by? When you hear Janet Jackson, Kid Rock, Timberlake, Nelly and P-Diddy are performing at half time, you have to know its going to be something you don't want your kids seeing.

its like saying Kaszinsky, Dommer, and Manson will be doing a puppet show.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not looking for a revival of The Sound of Music, but I also think it's reasonable to expect blatant sex to not be a part of the show. Years ago, you had to switch to MTV to see smut during halftime. Now, CBS hires MTV to produce the halftime. That's irresponsible. But hey, it's good business, since both CBS and MTV are owned by Viacom.

Blatant sex means there is actually sex occuring. There's more blatant sex occuring on Friends at the same time on Thursdays than there was at the Super Bowl. Last week at 8 on Sunday, Cold Case showed a black woman being raped and murdered by white men, showing the men's bodies moving back and forth, the woman screaming, and her body jerking forward and back. I find that more offensive than a bunch of people jerking around dancing.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Isn't apathy not changing the channel in the first place when you find something you think you may be offended by? When you hear Janet Jackson, Kid Rock, Timberlake, Nelly and P-Diddy are performing at half time, you have to know its going to be something you don't want your kids seeing.

its like saying Kaszinsky, Dommer, and Manson will be doing a puppet show.

Aside from Nelly, who I've never heard of in my life, I would expect a dance number from Janet Jackson, bad singing and redneck festivities from Kid Rock, a Brian Austin Green impersonation from Timberlake, and a rip-off of someone else by Ppuffdiddydaddy. None of that screams "inappropriate" to me. Or at least, it didn't have to be.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Blatant sex means there is actually sex occuring. There's more blatant sex occuring on Friends at the same time on Thursdays than there was at the Super Bowl. Last week at 8 on Sunday, Cold Case showed a black woman being raped and murdered by white men, showing the men's bodies moving back and forth, the woman screaming, and her body jerking forward and back. I find that more offensive than a bunch of people jerking around dancing.

And once again, you miss the point - the Super Bowl is advertised as a family "show;" Cold Case is not. I know what I'm getting with Cold Case; and for the Super Bowl, again, there is an expectation of what the programming will be based on who is watching.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think the point is, the Super Bowl is played on a Sunday night, early enough so that kids can watch most of it. It's clearly billed as a "gather the family around the TV, once-a-year sporting event." There's an expectation of what the programming will be, given the nature of the broadcast. I don't have a problem changing the channel if I don't like what I see, but on the other hand, I shouldn't be forced to make that choice - or have to scrutinize every second of the programming - because of the inappropriate programming they chose to air.

Yup, this is my main point. The TV show or movie may be suitable for the kids, but quite often the ads aren't. Now when we go to the movies, we can't enter the theater until the movie actually starts, and for TV it's either don't watch the show with the kids, or sit there to turn the commercials off.

I'm surprised the advertisers are doing this. They are actually discouraging lots of us from seeing their ad, all to appeal to the 20-something single males out there. And by going along with it, TV is quickly making it so my family can't (won't, whatever word you want to use) watch their shows because of the ads.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by astralhaze

*side note: What the hell? Unless that outfit had some sort of mechanical parts I'm not aware of it can't malfunction.

A friend of mine had her costume malfunction on stage. She was in "The Miser", by Moliere, and the production used period costumes. He dress was very heavily corseted, including a wooden wedge or board to help shape her busom. (I'm not exactly sure how it works, this was explained to me about 20 years ago.) Anyway, at a performance (unfortunately the one after I attended), one of the laces gave way, the wooden wedge rocketed upward striking the actress in the nose, and her bodice fell down.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

The only TV shows I watch on TV anymore have Law & Order in the title. (other than the simpsons & Bernie Mac!) Anything else has pretty much been cancelled and is either out on DVD or I want it on DVD.

CBS = See B.S.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think the point is, the Super Bowl is played on a Sunday night, early enough so that kids can watch most of it. It's clearly billed as a "gather the family around the TV, once-a-year sporting event." There's an expectation of what the programming will be, given the nature of the broadcast. I don't have a problem changing the channel if I don't like what I see, but on the other hand, I shouldn't be forced to make that choice - or have to scrutinize every second of the programming - because of the inappropriate programming they chose to air.

I'm not looking for a revival of The Sound of Music, but I also think it's reasonable to expect blatant sex to not be a part of the show. Years ago, you had to switch to MTV to see smut during halftime. Now, CBS hires MTV to produce the halftime. That's irresponsible. But hey, it's good business, since both CBS and MTV are owned by Viacom.

I agree completely. Those who are saying "just change the channel" are missing the point, this is a show the entire country/world sees - including many, many children. Should we reasonably expect to see a breast popping out of a "malfunctioning wardrobe," or an ad that tells us beastiality is funny?!

The game should be a family-friendly event from start to finish.

[HornedFrog Purple]

If you are going to bitch about it, bitch about the whole halftime show. It was all raunchy.

As far as the exposure... well it had been rehearsed a few times and they didn't do that. In my mind the blame should fall on MTV.

I find it ironic that people are up in arms about this but on the other hand very few on this board cared when a college football team did a rehearsed skit after a touchdown imitating a grenade killing them all against a military academy.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

If you are going to bitch about it, bitch about the whole halftime show. It was all raunchy.

As far as the exposure... well it had been rehearsed a few times and they didn't do that. In my mind the blame should fall on MTV.

I find it ironic that people are up in arms about this but on the other hand very few on this board cared when a college football team did a rehearsed skit after a touchdown imitating a grenade killing them all against a military academy.

Because sex is a lot worse than violence.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

I find it ironic that people are up in arms about this but on the other hand very few on this board cared when a college football team did a rehearsed skit after a touchdown imitating a grenade killing them all against a military academy.

I'm not complaining about it being raunchy per se. I'm complaining because it was raunchy for the audience they wanted and knew they were getting. A tit is a tit. That grenade skit would go well over the heads of many kids. I think they were both inappropriate, but for different reasons.

And while I don't blame CBS for the "breast-capades," you said it yourself - the entire show was raunchy. CBS certainly knew about 95% of the show's content. They certainly deserve some blame.

[MikeVic]

Did MTV produce last year's half-time show too? Or any other year? I'm too lazy to look on the net, and I'm curious about this...

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not complaining about it being raunchy per se. I'm complaining because it was raunchy for the audience they wanted and knew they were getting. A tit is a tit. That grenade skit would go well over the heads of many kids. I think they were both inappropriate, but for different reasons.

And while I don't blame CBS for the "breast-capades," you said it yourself - the entire show was raunchy. CBS certainly knew about 95% of the show's content. They certainly deserve some blame.

So assume the breast-capades didn't happen. I highly doubt there would be as much backlash as there is now. I submit the escapade made it raunchy in the minds of a lot of people. Not the fact that there was a ton of it going on the whole time.

I do agree that CBS should take the blame for the entire show, but not that specific incident.

The Super Bowl should be a family event, but in the world of $$ and advertising, it's just not going to happen unfortunately.

[heybrad]

A little different issue I have with the halftime show... During the game, players were losing their footing all over the place. Gosh, do you think that has anything to do with having stages and dancers pounding on the grass for 30 minutes.

I've also decided that I'm going to become a big music star. I cant sing and I cant play any instruments, but hey, if Kid Rock can do it, anybody can.

[MikeVic]

Hey, Brad.

[Ksyrup]

Guys were losing their footing during the first half as well, though. What was with the turf? I confess I didn't watch many Texans games this year - was this normal?

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Guys were losing their footing during the first half as well, though. What was with the turf? I confess I didn't watch many Texans games this year - was this normal?

They put on a show before the game too. I think it was Aerosmith.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

do you normally let your children watch prime time TV? Its the same thing.

I would say most parents of 4-9 year old children carefully monitor the content of the tv their children are watching. They don't watch NYPD Blue or much of anything with content like that - they know what's coming and don't tune it in. What they are upset about is that sort of thing popping up in programming they would expect (and have been promised) to be family oriented.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by heybrad

They put on a show before the game too. I think it was Aerosmith.

I guess that's why I didn't hear Aerosmith, but saw them advertised. I stayed away from the TV until 6:18pm, skipping the 27.5 hours of pre-game hype and human interest stories. Basically, I just treated it like it was the Olympics. I've got to get myself trained for the Non-Viewing Event of Summer 2004, and this was a solid workout.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I will reiterate my previous statement it was a fucking tit. That's all. It was on TV for a second or two. I didn't even see the damned thing. A friend of mine said "Was that Janet Jackson's tit?" And I looked up and they'd gone to commercial already. I had no idea.

I can hardly imagine any child being scarred by seeing 2 seconds of boob. It'd probably do everyone in America a little good if there was smore casual boobage tossed around, kids and adults alike. The uproar this has caused is evidence enough this.

People just have to get over this fear or whatever it is of breasts. Super Bowl is a good place to start. Perhaps next year we'll see 4 seconds of one tit. Then 3 seconds of two the following year. We may even see a topless halftime show in about 50 years or so.

I mean, we had commercials for "Troy" and "The Alamo" where I am sure innocent eyes watched men hack and slash other men or blow them away with a cannon. But a tit. Two seconds of a tit and the world is in an uproar.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

It'd probably do everyone in America a little good if there was smore casual boobage tossed around, kids and adults alike. The uproar this has caused is evidence enough this.

Mmmmm...smores.

Mmmmm...boobage.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I will reiterate my previous statement it was a fucking tit. That's all. It was on TV for a second or two. I didn't even see the damned thing. A friend of mine said "Was that Janet Jackson's tit?" And I looked up and they'd gone to commercial already. I had no idea.

I can hardly imagine any child being scarred by seeing 2 seconds of boob. It'd probably do everyone in America a little good if there was smore casual boobage tossed around, kids and adults alike. The uproar this has caused is evidence enough this.

People just have to get over this fear or whatever it is of breasts. Super Bowl is a good place to start. Perhaps next year we'll see 4 seconds of one tit. Then 3 seconds of two the following year. We may even see a topless halftime show in about 50 years or so.

I mean, we had commercials for "Troy" and "The Alamo" where I am sure innocent eyes watched men hack and slash other men or blow them away with a cannon. But a tit. Two seconds of a tit and the world is in an uproar.

Fine, it was no worse than the violence, but whats it better than?
And long before the tit popped out I had turned it off because I didn't wanna see some dude up there singing about cumming all over his bitches during the Super Bowl half time show.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

SO, you'll let your children watch men violently beat the shit out of each other, curse a storm on the sidelines (trust me you can tell what they say), but you get all freaked out when a nipple comes out at halftime?

Actually, you are the one getting "all freaked out". Again, I might add.

[Bubba Wheels]

I think Janet Jackson is really just auditioning for the next "Calender Girls" periodical, given her advancing age.

[Easy Mac]

where am I "freaked out?"

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I will reiterate my previous statement it was a fucking tit. That's all. It was on TV for a second or two. I didn't even see the damned thing. A friend of mine said "Was that Janet Jackson's tit?" And I looked up and they'd gone to commercial already. I had no idea.

I hate to play the role of community prig...but what message does it send to children watching that it is ok for a man to forceably rip open a woman's shirt so that he can see her breasts?

The nipple? I don't really care. The cock grabbing, simulated butt-fucking and bodice ripping? Yes, I care. There is a time and place and it isn't on network television during family hour.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

... Cold Case showed a black woman being raped and murdered by white men, showing the men's bodies moving back and forth, the woman screaming, and her body jerking forward and back. I find that more offensive than a bunch of people jerking around dancing.

I saw that episode, and was thinking "what the hell are they showing this for? Isn't it the eight o'clock hour?". I was disturbed enough that I might have changed the channel even if my 4 year old daughter wasn't in the room. As a result I won't be watching Cold Case again unless they move the program to a more appropriate time slot. With regard to the superbowl halftime show: During the pre-game, when they announced who would be performing, I decided that half time was nap time. I doubt the NFL will make the same mistake, letting MTV produce the halftime, ever again. It is okay to skew programming toward a more lucrative demographic, just don't offend a large segment of your audience at the same time.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Subby

The nipple? I don't really care. The cock grabbing, simulated butt-fucking and bodice ripping? Yes, I care.

This almost makes even me wish QOTM was still around.

I love tits as much as the next guy, but the bottom line is that CBS really needs to watch the shit they're airing during an event that all demographics are watching. I'm sure there were quite a lot of upset parents after the halftime show.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Makes me wonder if Fox would have gotten away with it....

I think the argument "If I wanted to watch MTV, I would watch MTV, not MTV on CBS." is a valid one.

CBS has always been the more traditional censored network of the four (CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX) to me, but they are changing too. Pretty soon there won't be a difference amongst any of them.

[kcchief19]

Am I the only one who finds impotence commercials just as tasteless and pointless as the halftime show? In fact, I think I'd find it even harder to explain to a child why Mike Ditka is all jazzed about the fact that he can't get his crank going than explain Janet's "wardrobe malfunction."

"Daddy, what is that man talking about? I don't understand."

"Well, Bunny, that man is Mike Ditka. He used to be a famous football coach. But he's really old now -- much older than daddy, by the way -- and he can't have 'special time' with his wife, so he needs medicine to make him feel better."

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Makes me wonder if Fox would have gotten away with it....

I think the argument "If I wanted to watch MTV, I would watch MTV, not MTV on CBS." is a valid one.

CBS has always been the more traditional censored network of the four (CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX) to me, but they are changing too. Pretty soon there won't be a difference amongst any of them.

There should always be a difference, for this simple fact: CBS is regulated because the licensing is basically free for the owners, and they broadcast over the Public airwaves. Cable is pretty-much unregulated, and its restricted to those who pay extra to get it. Now the networks have been losing audience to cable for sometime now, but to stoop to this level during basically family entertainment at the dinnertime hour show how arrogant and out of touch these network execs have gotten. Time for some hefty fines.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I see what you are saying, but I also cannot see how this changes anything about the society we live in. A bunch of women could have been out there singing and dancing with no skin showing and it would not change the way people act and dress in this country.

I agree with you. My point wasn't that it changes society, but that it had no place as part of a football game that millions of children are watching.

[Easy Mac]

8:30 PM is dinnertime?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

8:30 PM is dinnertime?

Not everybody lives in Taxxachussetts. Most probably live in later time zones!

[Easy Mac]

I don't know anyone from massachusetts.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I don't know anyone from massachusetts.

Ok, said that because both teams were from eastern time zone. Just get your Road Atlas out and follow the thick, black line that delineates the time zones, there are actually 4 of them.

[k0ruptr]

a boob. thats all it was, for two seconds. they showed a horse farting and scorching some girl's hair. its america people, yes thats right, AMERICA

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Time for some hefty fines.

I suspect you might just be right about that.

If sanctions were levied at the network level, the max fine is $27,500k, which means nothing to CBS.

On the other hand, if the actions were taken at the affiliate level (since that's who actually aired the material) then things get a little more serious. Try 215 U.S. affiliates X $27,500k = $5,912,500.

Still a drop in the overall bucket, but a lot more noticeable than $27,500.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by heybrad

A little different issue I have with the halftime show... During the game, players were losing their footing all over the place. Gosh, do you think that has anything to do with having stages and dancers pounding on the grass for 30 minutes.

Don't forget the smoke that was lingering over the field well into the third quarter. I miss when the superbowl was actually about the championship of the NFL and when you heard "What a boob." it was about Thurman "Where's my helmet" Thomas....

[Ksyrup]

Or Leon Lett.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Leon Lett... that play was so insignificant because they were annhilating the Bills but everyone remembers Leon Lett.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I suspect you might just be right about that.

If sanctions were levied at the network level, the max fine is $27,500k, which means nothing to CBS.

On the other hand, if the actions were taken at the affiliate level (since that's who actually aired the material) then things get a little more serious. Try 215 U.S. affiliates X $27,500k = $5,912,500.

Still a drop in the overall bucket, but a lot more noticeable than $27,500.

Why not include the NFL? The've got some pretty deep pockets, and who says that they get to be excempt? Certainly not all those Democratic lawyers running for President.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Why not include the NFL? The've got some pretty deep pockets, and who says that they get to be excempt? Certainly not all those Democratic lawyers running for President.

The NFL isn't licensed by the FCC. But all those CBS affiliates are.