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

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I struggle to understand how someone couldn't object to the halftime show. Those who don't have a problem with it appear to be either isolating the alleged 'costume malfunction' as an issue of sex rather than violence and sex and wondering what the big deal is or saying that seeing the halftime show won't have any kind of effect on those who saw it.

Get back to the entire message the halftime show was sending. The show was essentially saying that men can use their power to make women objects and commit sexual assault to possess these objects. That message has to be challenged. Timberlake presented that message and Jackson's actions implicated her in the same idea. She allowed Timberlake to do what he did even if the consequences were more severe than she initially intended. We can't necessarily say that the show was about sex, but Timberlake and Jackson connected violence to sex. Sure, you could question my definition of violence, but if any man did the same thing on the street, I don't think too many people would disagree that he had committed a violent act.

Will this one halftime show change the way people relate to one another? That would be a ludicrous conclusion to come to. However, it's the connection between sex and violence that has to be questioned and the images linking these things in our culture that have to have an effect over time as they continue to bombard us.

I agree, that message needs to be challenged. It's horrible, offensive, and people should take whatever steps necessary to prevent it. This message, however, is everywhere on TV. If the reason the FCC was investigating the halftime show was to stop this message, they better broaden the investigation just a wee bit there. The reason the FCC is investigating the hafltime show was because we saw a tit. In fact, we only thought we saw a tit (I am still sticking with my "no nipple, ni nudity" stance that has been broadly accepted in our society). If that pull away bra thing hadn't come lose only the very fringe would be taking issue with it. That's the problem I have with this whole thing. This isn't about challenging the message you describe (which I think needs to be challenged), this about a bunch of people going nuts because we're a crazy society who can't handle seeing a bared tit. Or even thinking we have.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

As for the flag, the thing about that is its supposed to be treated as a 'living' thing.

According to who? You? What authority?

The flag affords me the freedom to treat it however I please.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Subby

According to who? You? What authority?

The flag affords me the freedom to treat it however I please.

LOL, ok sunshine

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Subby

According to who? You? What authority?

The flag affords me the freedom to treat it however I please.

I have no problem with this issue either. Wasn't Kid Rock singing a song about America anyway?

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

There are a lot of people in this country who don't find such things offensive. Just because the FCC is in place to do a job, doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do or how they do it.

I just found it humorous that some of the conservatives on the boards here were all of a sudden not only fond of but pushing for more government intervention.

So lets say the FCC says "hey if you are going to present a segment like that in your show, next time use a disclaimer immediately before stating: 'The content of this (segment, halftime show etc) might be objectionable to younger viewers'"

They do that all the time on other prime-time shows, why not here also?

I believe that if that had happened it does two things: 1. cover the network under an opinionated segment of taste and 2. allows those who don't want their kids seeing it an opportunity to know about it beforehand.

The sad thing is you shouldn't need the government stepping in and enforcing it, it should be common sense. But then again that is what a lot of laws are about, injection of common sense.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

LOL, ok sunshine

I knew you would agree with me.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

If the reason the FCC was investigating the halftime show was to stop this message, they better broaden the investigation just a wee bit there. The reason the FCC is investigating the hafltime show was because we saw a tit. In fact, we only thought we saw a tit (I am still sticking with my "no nipple, ni nudity" stance that has been broadly accepted in our society).

Methinks part of the reason is that when the FCC didn't act in response to Bono dropping the F-word, the FCC was barraged with e-mails on two separate occasions, near overloading the e-mail system.

[corbes]

This moment is the most TiVoed moment ever, according to this article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sion_tivo_dc_3

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

So lets say the FCC says "hey if you are going to present a segment like that in your show, next time use a disclaimer immediately before stating: 'The content of this (segment, halftime show etc) might be objectionable to younger viewers'"

They do that all the time on other prime-time shows, why not here also?

I believe that if that had happened it does two things: 1. cover the network under an opinionated segment of taste and 2. allows those who don't want their kids seeing it an opportunity to know about it beforehand.

The sad thing is you shouldn't need the government stepping in and enforcing it, it should be common sense. But then again that is what a lot of laws are about, injection of common sense.

^^^^^

HFP gets it. It isn't about whether or not seeing a tit is ok. That seems to be the focal point of the argument for the past 5 pages. What it is about is EXPECTATION. If I go to a website titled baretits.com, I EXPECT to see bare breasts. If I go to disney.com I DON'T expect to see explicit images of people having sex.

The flashing of a boob for 2 seconds isn't a big deal. The flashing of a boob for 2 seconds during the halftime show of the super bowl, when no one is expecting it, is a little more of an issue. People have mentioned Europe and how uncut R rated movies are shown on primetime, and how nudity isn't a big deal. Fine. It has become accepted and expected. In America it hasn't, yet.

For those who say "well, what did you expect? It was P Diddy, Kid Rock, Janet Jackson, and Justin Timberlake" I would ask you if you EXPECTED to see Justin Timberlake rip off Jackson's shirt to expose a bare breast.

Yes, you can turn the channel if you don't want to see sexual content, but you have to know that it will be on BEFORE you can turn the channel.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

^^^^^

HFP gets it. It isn't about whether or not seeing a tit is ok. That seems to be the focal point of the argument for the past 5 pages. What it is about is EXPECTATION. If I go to a website titled baretits.com, I EXPECT to see bare breasts. If I go to disney.com I DON'T expect to see explicit images of people having sex.

The flashing of a boob for 2 seconds isn't a big deal. The flashing of a boob for 2 seconds during the halftime show of the super bowl, when no one is expecting it, is a little more of an issue. People have mentioned Europe and how uncut R rated movies are shown on primetime, and how nudity isn't a big deal. Fine. It has become accepted and expected. In America it hasn't, yet.

For those who say "well, what did you expect? It was P Diddy, Kid Rock, Janet Jackson, and Justin Timberlake" I would ask you if you EXPECTED to see Justin Timberlake rip off Jackson's shirt to expose a bare breast.

Yes, you can turn the channel if you don't want to see sexual content, but you have to know that it will be on BEFORE you can turn the channel.

That's a great point. I can't see how you can say "well, what did you expect...ect." Nelly should have whipped out his unit then right? A little penis for 2 seconds is no big deal.

[cuervo72]

Which is exactly why I hate when they have to put on commercials for video games shooting or running over people, or for horror movies, or beer commercials where a guy gets his head punched off. I can't anticipate these coming on and can't have my finger at the ready to switch the channel so my kids don't see things.

[Franklinnoble]

I think if the NFL really wants to make sure this never happens again, they'll yank CBS's television contract and sell it to NBC (or the WB, or TNT, or PAX, or Lifetime, or whoever the highest non-Viacom bidder is). CBS will be forbidden from broadcasting NFL games or using NFL footage for a period of 5 years or so.

That would get the industry's attention, and keep the gratuitous smut out of the picture.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I think if the NFL really wants to make sure this never happens again, they'll yank CBS's television contract and sell it to NBC (or the WB, or TNT, or PAX, or Lifetime, or whoever the highest non-Viacom bidder is). CBS will be forbidden from broadcasting NFL games or using NFL footage for a period of 5 years or so.

That would get the industry's attention, and keep the gratuitous smut out of the picture.

Yeah! And let that be a lesson to anyone who dares show a portion of a bare tit on prime time television!

[HornedFrog Purple]

Even Sam Horn against a southpaw could not have swung and missed by a greater margin.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Even Sam Horn against a southpaw could not have swung and missed by a greater margin.

It went over like a fart in church...

[rkmsuf]

MTV Blames Janet Jackson for Incident
34 minutes ago Add Entertainment - Reuters

By Kenneth Li

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Singer Janet Jackson (news) masterminded the Super Bowl halftime stunt that left her right breast exposed and prompted a federal probe into television indecency, the head of MTV said on Tuesday.

"Janet Jackson engineered it," MTV Chief Executive Tom Freston told Reuters in an interview.


The blame on Jackson comes on a second day of fallout after pop idol Justin Timberlake (news) tore off half of Jackson's black leather bustier while the pair were singing a duet, exposing her right breast at the conclusion of Sunday's Super Bowl halftime show.


Freston, whose company produced the halftime show for CBS, said Timberlake was informed of the stunt just moments before he took the stage with Jackson.


MTV and CBS are both owned by Viacom (NYSE:VIAB - news)(NYSE:VIA - news).


The Super Bowl is the highest-rated U.S. television event, watched by almost 90 million people.


The stunt, which Timberlake said was due to a "wardrobe malfunction," sparked widespread viewer complaints.


Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) regulators launched an investigation amid calls for the government to take a tougher stance on regulating indecency on television.


"There's now going to be an FCC (news - web sites) investigation into the nipple," Freston told reporters at a news conference.


Jackson took the blame but said on Monday her stunt went further than she intended: "The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my half-time show performance was made after final rehearsals. MTV was completely unaware of it. It was not my intention that it go as far as it did."


FINANCIAL FALLOUT


Freston said neither CBS nor the National Football League has rescinded or demanded a refund of MTV's production fees. But sources familiar with the situation said the incident could possibly cost CBS and the NFL millions of dollars.


The sources told Reuters that Time Warner Inc. (NYSE:TWX - news) unit America Online may now seek a partial refund of the estimated $10 million it paid as a major Super Bowl advertiser and exclusive halftime show sponsor.


"While AOL was the sponsor of the Super Bowl Halftime Show, we did not produce it," the company said in a statement. "Like the NFL, we were surprised and disappointed with certain elements of the show."


The company said the exposure of Jackson's breast means it cannot now broadcast the halftime extravaganza on its web site for 25 million AOL members and visitors.


"In deference to our membership and the fans, AOL and AOL.com will not be presenting the Halftime Show online as originally planned," the company said.


McDonald's Corp. (NYSE:MCD - news), which uses Timberlake as a pitch man, said it found the incident was inappropriate but that it will stand by the singer.





An NFL spokesman said it is unlikely that MTV will be asked to produce future halftime shows. MTV is no stranger to producing shows with shock value, most recently making headlines when it broadcast a performance by Madonna (news - web sites) and Britney Spears (news) ending with the pair kissing.

(Additional reporting by Michele Gershberg)

[sabotai]

Yes, you can turn the channel if you don't want to see sexual content, but you have to know that it will be on BEFORE you can turn the channel.

MTV puts on a half-time show and you didn't know before hand it was going to involve sexual content?

Is showing a breast 1 or 2 seconds worse than Timberlake and Jackson groping and grinding each other for two minutes? We were told dozens of times before hand that MTV was putting on the show. Everyone knows the kind of stuff they show and all of the parents know if they want their kids watching MTV. Was the entire half-time show except for the last 1 second something you would want your kids to see, and that last second wasn't?

I can understand why people might think "Well, it's on network TV so it can't be too bad." To those people I ask "Do you even watch network TV?" If you didn't want your kids to see "sexual content" during the half-time show, you should have changed the channel once Nelly started grabing himself or when Timberlake and Jackson started doing their act. Any kid who saw the breast also saw everything leading up to it (unless certain parents switched back to the game at just the wrong time. ), and if you let your kid watch everything else that happened during the half-time show, then I don't see how the breast is so horrible but the rest was acceptable.

As for the max amount FCC can fine CBS, pocket change. They won't care. The FCC will fine them to make it look they are doing something. This of course is after letting Bono off the hook for saying "the f-word" on TV. (Was that network fined?).

As for my opinion, I thought it was funny, I think this hysterical outrage is even more funny, and I do think this society is way too uptight about sex. I don't think MTV should apologize for anything and I certainly don't think the NFL should apologize either. I do think CBS should get fined. Not for showing a breast, but for hiring MTV to do anything. There's not greater crime then helping to spread MTV's influence.

But seriously, CBS broke a law, they should get fined. Regardless if I beleive in the specific law or not (which I don't), but one thing I can't stand is people who know the law but break it anyway. MTV put on the show, CBS should have known better and done a time delay in case anything happened. They didn't, so they get punished. Tough shit on them.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by sabotai

MTV puts on a half-time show and you didn't know before hand it was going to involve sexual content?

Is showing a breast 1 or 2 seconds worse than Timberlake and Jackson groping and grinding each other for two minutes? We were told dozens of times before hand that MTV was putting on the show. Everyone knows the kind of stuff they show and all of the parents know if they want their kids watching MTV. Was the entire half-time show except for the last 1 second something you would want your kids to see, and that last second wasn't?

I can understand why people might think "Well, it's on network TV so it can't be too bad." To those people I ask "Do you even watch network TV?" If you didn't want your kids to see "sexual content" during the half-time show, you should have changed the channel once Nelly started grabing himself or when Timberlake and Jackson started doing their act. Any kid who saw the breast also saw everything leading up to it (unless certain parents switched back to the game at just the wrong time. ), and if you let your kid watch everything else that happened during the half-time show, then I don't see how the breast is so horrible but the rest was acceptable.

As for the max amount FCC can fine CBS, pocket change. They won't care. The FCC will fine them to make it look they are doing something. This of course is after letting Bono off the hook for saying "the f-word" on TV. (Was that network fined?).

As for my opinion, I thought it was funny, I think this hysterical outrage is even more funny, and I do think this society is way too uptight about sex. I don't think MTV should apologize for anything and I certainly don't think the NFL should apologize either. I do think CBS should get fined. Not for showing a breast, but for hiring MTV to do anything. There's not greater crime then helping to spread MTV's influence.

But seriously, CBS broke a law, they should get fined. Regardless if I beleive in the specific law or not (which I don't), but one thing I can't stand is people who know the law but break it anyway. MTV put on the show, CBS should have known better and done a time delay in case anything happened. They didn't, so they get punished. Tough shit on them.

Actually AOL was the headline sponsor and unless you decided to make a concerted effort to educate yourself on the halftime it wasn't obvious MTV was the driving force. Regardless you shouldn't have to educate yourself on content presented during the Superbowl.

MTV absolutely should apologize since CBS attended every rehersal and nothing like this happened. Shit rolls downhill though so CBS deserves a fine, MTV deserves to lose respect and future money and Jackson/Timberlake et all should lose album sales...they can do whatever they want on the VMAs...

CBS "deserved it" is a weak excuse...about as weak as the halftime show...

[sabotai]

Actually AOL was the headline sponsor and unless you decided to make a concerted effort to educate yourself on the halftime it wasn't obvious MTV was the driving force.

Odd since I most certainly didn't and heard it at least several dozen times...

Shit rolls downhill though so CBS deserves a fine, MTV deserves to lose respect and future money and Jackson/Timberlake et all should lose album sales...

....since when did they have any?

[Ben E Lou]

The whole "CBS/NFL/AOL should have expected this from MTV" argument doesn't wash with me either. It is reasonable to expect that the halftime show would be in compliance with the law, for goodness' sake.

SIDE NOTE: Parents, particularly church parents who shelter their kids from everything, can be stark raving idiots. Several of my buddies who are church youth pastors reported getting phone calls from parents asking what they did about it when this happened. (For those that don't know, since Sunday night is a traditional time for church youth groups to meet, at least in the South, *many* of them hold Super Bowl parties on that night.) One guy put it best, "What did they expect ME to do, turn the game off, hold a prayer meeting, and try to cast the sexual demons out of the church's TV????"

[yabanci]

They way I look at it, it isn't about nudity or violence. The problem I had with it was there was a definite theme running through the entire halftime show -- it started with Nelly fondling his cock for three minutes singing "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes" while an army of cheerleader strippers sang "ooh yeah, I'm so hot, I want to take my clothes off"; then you had Kid Rock singing a celebration of strippers and hookers; then you had Janet Jackson grinding her ass on Justin Timberlake's crotch and a lot of other very sexual dancing; then you had Timberlake singing "I'm going to have your clothes off by the end of this song," which of course he did, by exposing Janet Jackson's ugly breast.

As a whole, the theme for young girls was when you want to party and have a good time, dance like a stripper and take your clothes off for the boys. Does anybody really think it was a coincidence that three of the songs expressly celebrated stripping? Does anybody think CBS and MTV didn't know this would be objectionable and controversial?

Now, this theme doesn't offend me personally. They can sing about this all they want and even have strip shows on network TV for all I care. But not during the superbowl when millions of young children are watching. I have no problem for that stuff in its appropriate time and place, but it's not good to spring it on people in the middle of what's marketed as a family event.

CBS and MTV knew the content of the half time show and approved of it. Putting the focus on Janet Jackson's breast and whether they knew about that is just a smokescreen to confuse the issues, because if they shift the focus to the breast (as opposed to the whole show) they can plausibly say they didn't know about it and act shocked and dissapointed by it as well. For them, the larger goal already has been achieved. The executives of the four networks are thrilled by all of this.

If you look at it from a business point of view, you can see exactly what CBS was doing. The networks are not in the business of producing content for television viewers; they are in the business of producing television viewers for advertisers. The whole network business plan is centered around generating audiences for advertisers. The superbowl is a great way to do this, but the problem used to be that people didn't pay much attention to the commercials -- they'd go fill their beer mugs or get another serving of nachos. So several years ago the networks realized if they can hype the commercials enough and get people to actually believe that commercials are "imporant" and are something that must be watched, then the networks can sell the commercial time for even higher prices than they did before. This worked beautifully. The problem then became halftime, because people would turn away to watch something else (like the MTV specials), which meant they couldn't sell the commercial time during halftime for as much money as they would like. Thus the goal became to keep the audience during halftime and to make superbowl halftime -- like the commercials themselves -- something everybody must watch in future years or risk being left out of what everybody will be talking about the day after. So they produce a halftime show they know will be objectionble and create huge amounts of controversy (and, of course, their news divisions will profit off the controversy). It worked like a charm. Who's going to miss the superbowl halftime next year? Everybody will be glued to it to see if there is anything controversial, allowing the networks to make a killing selling commercial time. Now, not only is the superbowl and the commercials "must see TV," but also the the halftime show -- 100 million zombies staring at a television for four hours straight, a broadcaster's dream.

Of course, this story never gets told, because the networks know their news divisions can generate a bigger audience (which they sell to advertisers) by turning all of this into a televised debate between the right wingers who are crying about the downfall of american society and arguing for more censorship and the left wingers who argue it was just a breast and ask why anyone should be so upset over a part of the human body that was shown on television for two seconds.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Odd since I most certainly didn't and heard it at least several dozen times...


....since when did they have any?

They had enough to land multiple SuperBowl halftime shows and have TRL live on Sunday prior to the game on the network.

I'm sure you could be aware they were producing it but it's not realistic to expect the majority of the millions of viewers to research every part of the upcoming production or even be expected to pay attention to that. I think it's asking precious little to expect that when you watch one of America's premier events over network airwaves that the viewer receive appropriate content...

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

Mark me down as a person who had no idea that it was produced by MTV until after the fact. Between "watching" the game with over 50 high school kids, making sure the chili was hot but not too hot in the crock pots, walking all over this large facility to make sure things were remotely supervised, making sure we had enough ice, etc. etc. etc., I hardly heard one bit of commentary all night long.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by yabanci

They way I look at it, it isn't about nudity or violence. The problem I had with it was there was a definite theme running through the entire halftime show -- it started with Nelly fondling his cock for three minutes singing "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes" while an army of cheerleader strippers sang "ooh yeah, I'm so hot, I want to take my clothes off"; then you had Kid Rock singing a celebration of strippers and hookers; then you had Janet Jackson grinding her ass on Justin Timberlake's crotch and a lot of other very sexual dancing; then you had Timberlake singing "I'm going to have your clothes off by the end of this song," which of course he did, by exposing Janet Jackson's ugly breast.

As a whole, the theme for young girls was when you want to party and have a good time, dance like a stripper and take your clothes off for the boys. Does anybody really think it was a coincidence that three of the songs expressly celebrated stripping? Does anybody think CBS and MTV didn't know this would be objectionable and controversial?

Now, this theme doesn't offend me personally. They can sing about this all they want and even have strip shows on network TV for all I care. But not during the superbowl when millions of young children are watching. I have no problem for that stuff in its appropriate time and place, but it's not good to spring it on people in the middle of what's marketed as a family event.

CBS and MTV knew the content of the half time show and approved of it. Putting the focus on Janet Jackson's breast and whether they knew about that is just a smokescreen to confuse the issues, because if they shift the focus to the breast (as opposed to the whole show) they can plausibly say they didn't know about it and act shocked and dissapointed by it as well. For them, the larger goal already has been achieved. The executives of the four networks are thrilled by all of this.

If you look at it from a business point of view, you can see exactly what CBS was doing. The networks are not in the business of producing content for television viewers; they are in the business of producing television viewers for advertisers. The whole network business plan is centered around generating audiences for advertisers. The superbowl is a great way to do this, but the problem used to be that people didn't pay much attention to the commercials -- they'd go fill their beer mugs or get another serving of nachos. So several years ago the networks realized if they can hype the commercials enough and get people to actually believe that commercials are "imporant" and are something that must be watched, then the networks can sell the commercial time for even higher prices than they did before. This worked beautifully. The problem then became halftime, because people would turn away to watch something else (like the MTV specials), which meant they couldn't sell the commercial time during halftime for as much money as they would like. Thus the goal became to keep the audience during halftime and to make superbowl halftime -- like the commercials themselves -- something everybody must watch in future years or risk being left out of what everybody will be talking about the day after. So they produce a halftime show they know will be objectionble and create huge amounts of controversy (and, of course, their news divisions will profit off the controversy). It worked like a charm. Who's going to miss the superbowl halftime next year? Everybody will be glued to it to see if there is anything controversial, allowing the networks to make a killing selling commercial time. Now, not only is the superbowl and the commercials "must see TV," but also the the halftime show -- 100 million zombies staring at a television for four hours straight, a broadcaster's dream.

Of course, this story never gets told, because the networks know their news divisions can generate a bigger audience (which they sell to advertisers) by turning all of this into a televised debate between the right wingers who are crying about the downfall of american society and arguing for more censorship and the left wingers who argue it was just a breast and ask why anyone should be so upset over a part of the human body that was shown on television for two seconds.

Outstanding analysis yabanci. Outstanding.

[sabotai]

The whole "CBS/NFL/AOL should have expected this from MTV" argument doesn't wash with me either. It is reasonable to expect that the halftime show would be in compliance with the law, for goodness' sake.

CBS should expect MTV to be in complience with the law, but would you trust them, Kid Rock, P Diddy, Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson and Nelly to be? I wouldn't. Live radio shows do a time delay for a reason. If I had that group doing a live show, I would have done a time delay too. Of course MTV should be expected to be on good behaivor, but given that MTV and the people they put on have a history of doing "shock" things to get attention, they should have taken precautions.

If a radio show does not take precautions and someone breaks the FCC's regulations, the radio station gets punished. Same situation here.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by sabotai

MTV puts on a half-time show and you didn't know before hand it was going to involve sexual content?

Is showing a breast 1 or 2 seconds worse than Timberlake and Jackson groping and grinding each other for two minutes?

I think we're starting to beat a dead horse here - continually - but the two salient points are:

1. Expectations. I don't care if it was Playboy putting on the halftime show, I would expect a different type of show then one would expect to see on a pay-per-view channel. It's the Super Bowl and families are watching. Just like Janet Jackson has managed to perform a time or two in the past while staying within "PG" bounds, I think we have a right to expect MTV or whomever is producing the show, to put on a show that is appropriate for the audience.

2. The breast might have been the focal point of the show, but clearly, most people who are upset about the breast are equally as upset about the entire content of the show. And even focusing on that one incident, I think many people here have made it clear that the manner in which the "exposure" occurred was more troublesome than simply seeing a bare breast. However, I take issue with both.

Clearly, there are some fundamental disagreements here about what should be allowed on free TV and what is appropriate for children to see. Unlike some, I would never feel comfortable with my child seeing an exposed body part (and I'm not referring to upper arms or ankles here) because that introduces the concept of sexuality at an age in which sexuality is (or should be) non-existent. You can argue that a "breast is just a breast," but that's just being naive or willfully blind to the reality we live in. Breasts are clearly considered sexual objects - whether or not you think they should be - and as such, they are inappropriate for children.

As much as you might prefer for our society to subscribe to the Richard Hatch clothing-optional lifestyle, we all know there are generally-accepted standards that we were taught and that we teach our kids. And giving kids mixed signals by permitting this kind of exhibition blurs the line, in their mind, between reality and fantasy. "If Janet Jackson can show her breasts to million of people, what's wrong with showing mine to 1 or 2 guys at school?" If you don't think kids think this way, you've obviously never had kids.

Now, I'm all for adults getting their kicks, so this isn't about a belief that we should do away with all nudity, etc. But the Super Bowl is not an appropriate place for this. Not even close.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by sabotai

CBS should expect MTV to be in complience with the law, but would you trust them, Kid Rock, P Diddy, Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson and Nelly to be? I wouldn't. Live radio shows do a time delay for a reason. If I had that group doing a live show, I would have done a time delay too. Of course MTV should be expected to be on good behaivor, but given that MTV and the people they put on have a history of doing "shock" things to get attention, they should have taken precautions.

If a radio show does not take precautions and someone breaks the FCC's regulations, the radio station gets punished. Same situation here.

I can see holding CBS responsible; they clearly are but the bulk of the responsiblity goes to MTV and the performers. I believe the breast thing was a bait and switch by either Jackson, MTV or both.

[Easy Mac]

Have people not seen every MTV awards show for the past decade? Aside from the bare breast, the halftime show is the exact same as every MTV award show. I'm not arguing what they did was right, I'm arguing that eventually you have to be responsible for what you allow your children to hear and see, regardless of what time you have the TV on. Maybe the NFL should have had better judgement, but don't use it as a cop out when you end up doing nothing.

And they didn't focus on the breast, they focused on Timberlake and Janet finishing their "rhythmic dance." At the end of a set, would you really expect them to zoom as far away from possible instead of staying close up on the performers? And am I the only person who noticed that as soon as CBS saw what was going on, they zoomed the fuck away from there as soon as possible... at least they didn't just stare at it like they did with the streaker.

[Maple Leafs]

I was going to post this in the Super Bowl ads thread, but it seems to fit better here.

Up here in Canada, we don't get most of the US ads (although we did get that classic donkey ad). For the most part, Canadian Super Bowl ads are the same ones we see the rest of the year. But this year there was a new Blue Light ad that debuted.

Here's the set up. It's a club, loud music, people dancing. Two attractive women are sitting at the bar talking. One says "I like your lip gloss". The other says "Thanks, want to try it?" The first one nods, and then... they proceed to make out for about ten or fifteen seconds. I don't mean a Britney/Madonna quickie, but a full on liplock. Then they cut to some guys watching and enjoying.

It was just truly bizarre to see. At our place, the whole room went silent as everyone tried to figure out if they had really just seen that.

I'm sure the ad will make it's way to the US soon enough. So everyone should have their hands on the remote when you head "I like your lip gloss". (Some of you because you'll want to turn it off, and some no doubt who'll want to Tivo it.)

[HornedFrog Purple]

This was not the first time MTV has participated in an NFL event so I am not buying that argument. They participated in the Kickoff 2002 event also:

http://www.nfl.com/ce/multi/0,3783,5564171,00.html

I don't remember Bon Jovi bumping, grinding and yanking his chain.

[sabotai]

Here's the set up. It's a club, loud music, people dancing. Two attractive women are sitting at the bar talking. One says "I like your lip gloss". The other says "Thanks, want to try it?" The first one nods, and then... they proceed to make out for about ten or fifteen seconds. I don't mean a Britney/Madonna quickie, but a full on liplock. Then they cut to some guys watching and enjoying.

It is not cool that we did not get that commercial.

[MacroGuru]

I am now envious of our northern brothers for that one commercial!!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Have people not seen every MTV awards show for the past decade?

Um. I haven't. I can't say for certain that I've *ever* watched an MTV awards show, other than walking by the TV and watching a particular performance when a roommate was watching. I only remember hearing about two potentially inappropriate incidents:

1. Madonna getting fondled while doing "Like a Virgin" in the 80's.
2. The Britney/Madonna kiss in the most recent one.

Obviously, doing what I do for a living, I have more knowledge of MTV than the vast majority of the 35-and-up crowd. Under normal circumstances, the parents of kids old enough to have been up watching halftime show would be in the 35-and-up crowd. I think it is reasonable to think that if a person was like me and had only heard about two significant MTV-related inappropriate incidents in nearly 20 years--both occurring on their own cable awards show, then MTV producing the show wouldn't have raised a red flag for that person.

[Easy Mac]

In MTV events, women fondling and being the object of men is not shocking. Britney daned with a snake nearly naked, then she ripped off a suit and had on a flesh-colored, skintight garment on. The rappers and many other performers constantly grab their crotch, hump women or the floor.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Have people not seen every MTV awards show for the past decade? Aside from the bare breast, the halftime show is the exact same as every MTV award show. I'm not arguing what they did was right, I'm arguing that eventually you have to be responsible for what you allow your children to hear and see, regardless of what time you have the TV on. Maybe the NFL should have had better judgement, but don't use it as a cop out when you end up doing nothing.

And once again, what MTV shows on its own cable channel is not relevant to what kind of show they produce for CBS that is being viewed by millions of children. And quite frankly, I didn't even know MTV was involved, but then again, I didn't turn on the pre-game until 6:18. I purposely stayed far away from the "show" aspects of the game.

My kid didn't even see the show, but I like to be pro-active on these issues, not reactive. I'm sure I could have been in the exact same situation that a number of parents are right now - trying to explain what happened to a kid too young to understand. Of course parents are ultimately responsible - and I think that's the issue here. It should be responsible to allow them to watch the Super Bowl, including the pre-game, halftime, and post-game festivities. CBS could show CSI at 6pm right after Barney, but I, as a parent, would have some warning that the content of that show is inappropriate for a child. No parent was given the warning that they should guard against their children watching the Super Bowl, the most watched event every year.

[Easy Mac]

I've never seen a warning before CSI.

And if you watched the game, as you say, they promoted it at least 4 times in the last 3 minutes of the half, because I turned to my girlfriend and asked how many times would we have to see the damn promotion where Gumbel says "janet jackson is performing at half-time, presented by MTV" while most of the video shown was of Kid Rock.

[HornedFrog Purple]

"There's now going to be an FCC (news - web sites) investigation into the nipple," Freston told reporters at a news conference.

Either this is a misquote or it is just plain gold.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I've never seen a warning before CSI.

And if you watched the game, as you say, they promoted it at least 4 times in the last 3 minutes of the half, because I turned to my girlfriend and asked how many times would we have to see the damn promotion where Gumbel says "janet jackson is performing at half-time, presented by MTV" while most of the video shown was of Kid Rock.

I'm talking about the content of the show CSI. I know what it is about. Likewise, I know what a football game is about. If I wasn't comfortable with my daughter watching the game, I wouldn't let her. But otherwise, nothing about the game or its "shows" gives any warning that the content is something other than what we've seen during any other football game this year, or other halftime shows I've seen.

Whether MTV was hyped or not, it doesn't matter. Again, there is an expectation that they will conform their show to the audience it is being presented to. MTV can still be "edgy," but that doesn't mean we should expect them to violate standards of decency. To me, this is very simple: it's a sliding scale. We know what MTV does on its own cable channel. I expect a less racy show when it's on CBS, just as I would expect to see something far raunchier than what I would see on MTV if MTV decided to have a pay-per-view event.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I've never seen a warning before CSI.

IIRC, CSI is "TV-14" for violence; and the little box in the corner says that every time it starts.

[Anthony]

it wasn't even a pretty breast. i wish it was Jessica Simpson's breast.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Clearly, there are some fundamental disagreements here about what should be allowed on free TV and what is appropriate for children to see. Unlike some, I would never feel comfortable with my child seeing an exposed body part (and I'm not referring to upper arms or ankles here) because that introduces the concept of sexuality at an age in which sexuality is (or should be) non-existent. You can argue that a "breast is just a breast," but that's just being naive or willfully blind to the reality we live in. Breasts are clearly considered sexual objects - whether or not you think they should be - and as such, they are inappropriate for children.

They are, but I don't think they should be. They certainly aren't in all cultures. All this madness about a portion of one tit just goes to show you how ridiculous this whole thing is. I am not willfully blind, I just wished the majority of folks would open thier eyes and see how foolish it all is. What especially pissed me off is when people go beserk when they see some woman trying to breast-feed her child. It's just stupid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I just wished the majority of folks would open thier eyes and see how foolish it all is.

Which isn't a bad description of how I feel about those who don't have see the problems with the incident.

And around and around it goes ...

[Ksyrup]

Reason #3,629 why I don't like Ralph Wiley:

"Best halftime show I've ever seen."

[Ksyrup]

I guess it could have been worse - this could have been the halftime entertainment:


Norwegian Black Metallers GORGOROTH Under Investigation For 'Insulting Religious Values' - Feb. 3, 2004

A prosecutor in Poland has launched an investigation into whether a concert by the black metal band GORGOROTH has violated the country's laws. The Norwegian band are suspected of having "insulted religious values" with their performance Sunday (Feb. 1) at the Krakow studios of Polish Television.

The show, which was to be filmed for an upcoming DVD, featured two naked women (with hoods over their heads) and one naked man, all of them "crucified" and covered in sheep blood, a number of sheep heads on spikes and some sheep entrails thrown all over the stage, as well as approximately 80 liters of fresh sheep blood brought to the studio by the band. During the performance, which was attended by an audience of 300, one of the models reportedly fainted from the lack of oxygen. The TV show's producers, who were not briefed in advance about the nature of the concert, were said to be "shocked" by the activities on stage.

The manager of the studio, Andrzej Jeziorek, notified the police and the recorded footage was confiscated by the authorities as evidence of a potential crime.

The TV crew, who had filmed various metal performances before (including those by CANNIBAL CORPSE, CHILDREN OF BODOM and ANATHEMA, among others) claimed in the Polish media that they had never seen anything quite as "horrific" as GORGOROTH's live show. "We were not repulsed, we were terrified!" the camera operators were quoted as saying by the Polish newspapers.

The concert promoters reportedly defended themselves by saying that all the people who came to watch the show were satisfied and none of them complained about having had their religious beliefs insulted in any way.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I guess it could have been worse - this could have been the halftime entertainment:


Norwegian Black Metallers GORGOROTH Under Investigation For 'Insulting Religious Values' - Feb. 3, 2004

A prosecutor in Poland has launched an investigation into whether a concert by the black metal band GORGOROTH has violated the country's laws. The Norwegian band are suspected of having "insulted religious values" with their performance Sunday (Feb. 1) at the Krakow studios of Polish Television.

The show, which was to be filmed for an upcoming DVD, featured two naked women (with hoods over their heads) and one naked man, all of them "crucified" and covered in sheep blood, a number of sheep heads on spikes and some sheep entrails thrown all over the stage, as well as approximately 80 liters of fresh sheep blood brought to the studio by the band. During the performance, which was attended by an audience of 300, one of the models reportedly fainted from the lack of oxygen. The TV show's producers, who were not briefed in advance about the nature of the concert, were said to be "shocked" by the activities on stage.

The manager of the studio, Andrzej Jeziorek, notified the police and the recorded footage was confiscated by the authorities as evidence of a potential crime.

The TV crew, who had filmed various metal performances before (including those by CANNIBAL CORPSE, CHILDREN OF BODOM and ANATHEMA, among others) claimed in the Polish media that they had never seen anything quite as "horrific" as GORGOROTH's live show. "We were not repulsed, we were terrified!" the camera operators were quoted as saying by the Polish newspapers.

The concert promoters reportedly defended themselves by saying that all the people who came to watch the show were satisfied and none of them complained about having had their religious beliefs insulted in any way.

Sounds like a great time...tell your friends...

[Ksyrup]

Bad timing...



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - In the wake of the controversy over the airing of Janet Jackson's breast during Sunday's Super Bowl halftime show on CBS, affiliates of NBC are rebelling at broadcasting an episode of the drama "ER" set for Thursday due to a scene showing an elderly female patient's breasts, according to a published report.

The trade publication Television Week said that some affiliates had questioned the scene when the episode was aired for them at a convention last month. The controversy, and possible Federal Communications Commission fine now being weighed for the halftime show, now has some affiliates considering not airing the "ER" episode.

"You're not going to find the stations very willing to take the heat," said one executive from a group of NBC stations quoted on a not-for-attribution basis by Television Week. "I think people are going to be backing off big-time."

While NBC owns a number of its affiliates, including those in the largest markets such as New York and Los Angeles, the majority of the country sees NBC shows on stations not owned by the network.

NBC did not have a comment for the article. The article said affiliates have been told that award-winning "ER" executive producer John Wells was unwilling to cut the scene.

The episode is set to air on the first night of "sweeps" week, which is important for setting television ad rates for the upcoming season based on the ratings they receive in the period. Thus a significant number of defections of affiliates for a show in the period would hurt the ads that NBC, a unit of General Electric Co., could charge for the nation's No. 2 drama behind CBS' crime drama "CSI."
Fines for obscenity by the FCC are levied against the various stations that air the show, not just the network. Each finding of obscenity can bring a maximum fine of $27,500.

The FCC and members of Congress have been pushing for larger fines, and stricter rules, on the broadcast of what is judged to be obscene material even before Sunday's halftime show. But the current rules impose less-strict standards on what can be shown after 10 p.m., when "ER" airs, than 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

[Maple Leafs]

Followup to the Canadian ad with the two hotties making out at the bar:
http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/Cont...=1075892689669

[Ksyrup]

"Many people were offended because they assumed the women were lesbians..."

So lesbians transferring lip gloss to each other by kissing is offensive, but straight women doing the same thing are not?

[Aardvark]

What I want to know is ...
... where can I order a copy of Janet's outfit to give to my wife?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Bad timing...



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - In the wake of the controversy over the airing of Janet Jackson's breast during Sunday's Super Bowl halftime show on CBS, affiliates of NBC are rebelling at broadcasting an episode of the drama "ER" set for Thursday due to a scene showing an elderly female patient's breasts, according to a published report.

The trade publication Television Week said that some affiliates had questioned the scene when the episode was aired for them at a convention last month. The controversy, and possible Federal Communications Commission fine now being weighed for the halftime show, now has some affiliates considering not airing the "ER" episode.

"You're not going to find the stations very willing to take the heat," said one executive from a group of NBC stations quoted on a not-for-attribution basis by Television Week. "I think people are going to be backing off big-time."

While NBC owns a number of its affiliates, including those in the largest markets such as New York and Los Angeles, the majority of the country sees NBC shows on stations not owned by the network.

NBC did not have a comment for the article. The article said affiliates have been told that award-winning "ER" executive producer John Wells was unwilling to cut the scene.

The episode is set to air on the first night of "sweeps" week, which is important for setting television ad rates for the upcoming season based on the ratings they receive in the period. Thus a significant number of defections of affiliates for a show in the period would hurt the ads that NBC, a unit of General Electric Co., could charge for the nation's No. 2 drama behind CBS' crime drama "CSI."
Fines for obscenity by the FCC are levied against the various stations that air the show, not just the network. Each finding of obscenity can bring a maximum fine of $27,500.

The FCC and members of Congress have been pushing for larger fines, and stricter rules, on the broadcast of what is judged to be obscene material even before Sunday's halftime show. But the current rules impose less-strict standards on what can be shown after 10 p.m., when "ER" airs, than 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but it's all about the tit. That's it. The tit. The rest of the stuff just gets drudged up because folks are all excited about it and it was trashy.