February 3, 2004
SUPER BOWL 'FALLOUT'
Respectability on Television. Many would say that those two terms are unable to both be true at the same time. But a couple of days after the Super Bowl telecast on CBS, and everyone from your average co-worker on down the line to the pitiful chairman of the FCC is once again talking about what should and shouldnít be shown on the boob-tube (no pun intended; okayÖ maybe a little pun intended).
For anyone who didnít see it or hasnít heard, Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson were together on stage for a lip-synched performance during the Super Bowl Halftime Show Sunday evening, and whether it was planned or not (some say it was, others say it was an ëaccidentí), Timberlake tore aside part of Jacksonís costume, revealing one of her breasts (the right one, Iím pretty sure; yep, someone on the radio just said it was the right one). This was on live television, mind you, and happened during the coveted 8:00pm ëfamily hourí spot. The performance has touched off quite an objection here in the heartland, and elsewhere too. CBS and MTV, which co-produced the Halftime Show, have said that the tear away was not planned and that they are not happy about what happened. Timberlake has apologized thru the media for what he says was a "wardrobe malfunction," while Jackson has been quoted as saying sheís sorry, but no oneís buying it.
FCC Chief Michael Powell, has been quoted in the media as being ëoutragedí by what he saw during the Halftime Show, and says there would be an immediate investigation into the broadcast. "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the TV for the celebration," said Powell. "Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better."
But why focus all of the attention on the Jackson/Timberlake thing-a-ma-jigÖ after all, by Powell's and everyone else's standard (everyone else who's 'outraged,' that is), almost every second of the Halftime Show was inappropriately provocative. During Jackson's bit, cabaret dancers were dressed in underwear pulled down to below the waist. The dance moves included bumping and grinding and a whole bunch of you-know-what grabbing. Kid Rock's musical selection (which I thought was the best performance of the Show) spoke of hookers, methadone clinics, and beer commercials; not to mention the fact that the song that Timberlake lip-synched before he tore off Jacksonís top was called ìRock Your Body,î with lyrics that included ìI'll have you naked by the end of this song.î
On its website Monday, MTV said "the tearing of Janet Jackson's costume was unrehearsed, unplanned and completely unintentional and was inconsistent with the assurances we had of the content of the performances.î But the network also wrote in one web-based story that appeared on its site late-Sunday evening that Jackson "got nasty" on the MTV produced Super Bowl Halftime Show. "Jaws across the country hit the carpet at exactly the same time," the story read. "You know what we're talking about; Justin Timberlake and a kinky finale that rocked the Super Bowl to its core."
There are bigger issues at play here, of course, and they extend well beyond the supposition that Timberlake and Jackson were once romantically linked with one another. Whatís okay to show on TV, and why the about-face from MTV? Language that was once forbidden is now a regular part of the prime-time dialogue. Should the FCC impose a rule that live events be broadcast with a delay, allowing language or images to be cleared up or bleeped out? Is that what should happen with live news events also? Or is it our responsibility as consumers to simply change the channel if we donít like what we see? Before you answer or comment on any of this, hereís whatís perhaps the most interesting fact of allÖ Despite all the outrageÖ despite all of the calls for investigationsÖ the boob-tube moment drew the largest spike in audience reaction TiVo has ever measured. TiVo said viewership spiked up to 180 percent as hundreds of thousands of households used TiVoís capabilities to pause and replay live television to view the incident again and again and again and again.
Posted by Mikal at February 3, 2004 5:02 AM
| TrackBack
SEX sells and Janet knew that. The whole Jackson Family (some more than other's) have been in the spotlight of late. In my opinion it speaks more of the performers moral judgment than the media's air time of IT. It was a planned thing(I believe)NOT intended by CBS (I question MTVs knowledge).
The great thing about the USA is you can have live performances (a lot less than we used to). You can make your own judgment on situations and events. If my sons happened to see that show (which they did not, but heard about it at school), we would discuss what the difference is between entertainment( poorly done in this instance) and reality.
That show was a test. I watched, for the football game and almost threw-up at halftime and walked away. Do we censure everything or allow our rights to make a valued personal judgment/thought. I am for keeping things open with limits. I bet Timberlake and Janet are laughing at this. They have enough money to make it a "never mind" and a "who cares." The music awards coming up will now be a MUST SEE.
I find your commentary illuminating, especially for someone who didn't see the Super Bowl. Sounds like the entire half-time show was nothing more than a 'show'! It's amazing to me that the FCC so intensly focuses on language and blatent visual displays, as opposed to the underlying meaning of lyrics, costumage, and suggestions of a lack of morality. These can often be far more harmful to children then the obvious.
Take for instance video games. I'm not a fan of them at all, but a video game in particular is one that parents see no problem with, and that is "Sim City" and the related family of games. These games, in particular, are far more dangerous than the 'shoot-em-up' type games. In these games, it's the underlying message, context, and 'freedom' to make choices and play those choices out to conslusion that worries me. For instance, a child playing these games can actually rape, hold hostage, murder, starve people, and more. While it can be an educational tool, it can also enable children to tap into potentially destructive emotions and no opportunity to the context to be scrutinized by parents.
AND, the real icing on all this...out of over 600,000 words in the English dictionary...only "7" are words prohibited to be used in broadcasts. No one said human emotion and actions are easy to understand...but let's be real... only 7 words... why worry!
Great game! What's the big deal... the lady showed a little breast. The only reason she did it was she can! It's her body to do what she want 's with it.
I won the Super Bowl pool at work, so being a
superstitious person, my new motto is "don't stress... undress!"
Peace out! See you on the 22nd.
It just goes to show you how repressed our society is. Who cares if there's a breast exposed on TV? Big deal. I'm sure every kid has seen a breast in their lifetime. But, turn to any other channel and you see people shooting guns and killing each other...oh, yeah, those are much better subjects to show on TV. While I don't advocate compromising or negative portrayals of women in the media, I don't think nudity is a bad thing. We just need to learn how to respect our bodies and feel more comfortable in them...get over the puritanical standards and enjoy life! If you don't want your kids to see people naked on TV, change the channel or shut it off. The more everyone makes a big deal out of it, the more attention it gets, and really, aren't there more things to worry about than Janet Jackson's exposed breast?
The broadcast airwaves are owned by the public. Some sense of public decency should be observed, but at the same time, the public should be free from restrictive regulations, such as have been imposed historically by the FCC, weary station & program managers, and the infamous people associated with the Hollywood 10.
In today's culture, showing a breast at the Superbowl half-time show shoud pass muster and be acceptable. We should judge CBS by its entire programming - one breast, at a very hyped event for a couple of seconds is such a miniscule part of its broadcast efforts that it really should be overlooked. Plus, the Superbowl is not exactly to be compared with the Wonderful World of Disney for Sunday night viewing.
Personally, I'd rather have seen Justin Timberlake take his shirt off, but oh well.
Think about this...
... the boob-tube moment drew the largest spike in audience reaction TiVo has ever measured. TiVo said viewership spiked up to 180 percent as hundreds of thousands of households used TiVo?s capabilities to pause and replay live television to view the incident again and again and again and again.
Isn?t nice that big brother or in this case big business is watching.
I agree with so many people on this one. Why are we stressing about Janet's breast when our President has killed 1.64 soldiers a day since the begining of Operation Iraqi Freedom and consistently lied to the American people. Why are we stressing when CSI, the most watch show on TV according to the inordinate amount of self publicity during CBS's Super Bowl broadcast, gets to show hookers getting murdered, incredibly graphic views of 'cadavers,' and unquestionably adult subject matter? Did the commercials depicting beastiality (monkey trying to hook up with a woman), horses farting and women in volleyball uniforms in cold weather (I know I saw nipple peaking through) not raise Mr Powell's attention? CBS stated publically that they didn't want to air "controversial" commercials, which is why they left out Bush in 30 Secs., so why did they air the aforementioned potentially controversial adverts? It amazes me that we are so puritanical about our bodies, but we let incredibly violent images flood our airwaves.
Which is worse, being comfortable with our bodies, or killing fellow humans? Maybe President George Bush could answer that one since he's sent so many of our soldiers to die in Iraq. Of course, I'm sure that we'll see an 'Airwaves Decency' bill rushed through the Congress and signed with spectacle by Curious George, with great fanfare...no doubt.
I can only feel for the many parents who watched the show with their young children. While I grew up very liberal and in a country that every now and then portrayed breasts on national TV (Germany), I believe the Janet Jackson stunt is different.
What the people who actually came up with the stunt did is take a national sports event, known to be watched by families, and choose it to exhibit a sexual reference to attract attention to a particular woman. That to me is the indecency of it. Not necessarily the view of a breast. The nature behind it is what is disgusting.
Post a Comment:
|
