Accusations fly, questions linger after Super Bowl peekaboo show - Big Big Forums

janelle · 02-05-2004, 02:01 AM

Pressure heightens on FCC to require air-delay on live events, including this weekend's Grammy awards.
BY ELIZABETH JENSEN, GEOFF BOUCHER AND LYNN SMITH
Los Angeles Times

The 2-second exposure of Janet Jackson's right breast during the Super Bowl halftime show brought hand-wringing from cultural critics, outrage from federal regulators and apologies from the two corporate network siblings -- MTV and CBS -- responsible for the broadcast.

Jackson confessed that she, without the knowledge of the producers, had cooked up the stunt after final rehearsals. If so, she apparently was in cahoots with her performing partner, Justin Timberlake, who was supposed to have only ripped away one layer of clothing instead of two, according to a spokeswoman for Jackson.

In a nation growing used to the raunchiest fare on cable and, increasingly, on broadcast TV, the moment appeared to represent a tipping point of sorts. Jackson -- whose first album since 2001 is due out March 30 -- chose to expose herself in front of an audience averaging nearly 90 million, jolting one of the last surviving mass-media events in an ever-more fragmented broadcasting environment.

Pressure on FCC

The episode not only became the newest platform for Americans to decry the increasing sexualizing of media. It also raised more calls for the Federal Communications Commission to require some live events with provocative performers to air with a delay of several seconds, the way talk radio does, to edit out objectionable material.

Critics found more to object to in the show than just the Jackson exposure.

During the game, commercials for competing erectile dysfunction products went nuance-for-nuance, earning CBS millions of dollars but creating awkward moments for parents and children watching at home.

A pay-per-view halftime special on another network featured two teams of lingerie-wearing beauties.

And if that wasn't enough, the limits of live sports TV were pushed in another forum Sunday: Los Angeles Laker center Shaquille O'Neal, complaining in a post-game interview about officiating, used such crude language that the National Basketball Association suspended him from Monday night's game.

Was it intentional?

Timberlake was performing one of his hits with Jackson when he reached across her leather gladiator outfit and pulled the covering off her right breast. CBS cameras almost immediately cut away, and none of the three announcers commented.

The initial explanation -- Timberlake's claim of "wardrobe malfunction" -- was immediately assaulted. Cynics felt the shock that seemed to register on the faces of Jackson and Timberlake looked more like stagecraft than real surprise, and noted the pair clearly waited a beat or two before making any gesture that obscured the female singer's torso.

All Timberlake would say in his own statement was that the event was "not intentional" -- a claim contradicted by Jackson Monday.

In Washington, lawmakers and regulators expressed sharp criticism of the halftime incident and FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell said his agency would investigate to determine who, if anybody, could be held accountable.

The chairman of the House panel that oversees the FCC said he will press ahead with a bill that would dramatically increase fines against television stations for such offenses.

"I am appalled with last night's shameless stunt during the Super Bowl," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House telecommunications subcommittee. "With my bill... networks will do more than just apologize for airing such brazen material; they will be paying big bucks for their offenses."

Placing blame

It is unclear what, if anything, CBS might have done to censor a live, halftime broadcast. And legal experts said that despite the tough words from regulators and lawmakers, the FCC is unlikely to severely punish Viacom or its CBS stations.

"What happened Sunday night was nudity" and you can't punish a station for that alone, said Jason Shrinsky, a onetime lawyer for the FCC who, as a private attorney, has defended shock jock Howard Stern against allegations of indecency.

Although broadcasters are not required to air live events on a delayed basis, they are held legally responsible for material sent out over the airwaves. A string of incidents ranging from profanity to shocking special effects have created a debate over where the government ought to draw the line.

The initial trigger was last year's Golden Globes broadcast, during which U2 rocker Bono used a vulgar term. The FCC considered imposing a fine on NBC for not employing its 7-second-delay device, but ultimately decided not to. In response, citizens sent 100,000 pieces of protest mail to the FCC.

One MTV executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said CBS should not have been surprised by the episode. MTV's Web site included the headline: "Janet Jackson's Super Bowl Show Promises 'Shocking Moments' "

Topping Jackson

CBS' affiliates, who as the local licensees would potentially bear the brunt of any FCC punitive action, fielded a flood of calls from viewers after the halftime stunt.

"There is more widespread outrage at this than at anything else in recent memory," said Bob Lee, head of CBS' affiliate board. "Viewers are telling stations that the entire MTV halftime show bordered on the lewd and was just inappropriate for a mass audience of the sort one might expect to tune in to the Super Bowl."

Even before the peekaboo finale, the halftime show was infused with plenty of racy energy. Rapper Nelly performed his hit "Hot in Herrre," which urges women to strip their clothes off to escape dance-floor swelter, and Kid Rock sang "Cowboy," an ode to the rap-rocker's favorite West Coast cultural treasures, among them Heidi Fleiss, Larry Flynt, artificial breasts and strip clubs.

Lee said affiliates are now "most concerned" about this Sunday's Grammy Awards. He said if CBS won't promise to institute a "minimal delay" to snip crude language or behavior, some affiliates might decide not to air the program.

"Someone," he warned, "is going to try to top" Jackson.

justme23 · 02-05-2004, 02:43 AM

All these people so offended by Janet and Justins actions should thank their lucky stars they live in this country. Where my husbands parents live (and most of the rest of Europe) shampoo and soap commercials feature men and women with full frontal nudity in the shower. So you can only just imagine what an actual television show is like. My husband saw more 'porn' (by American standards) on European television than you see on the Spice channel that you have to pay for here. If all we have to worry about in our lives is a two second shot of a boob and an occasional hiney shot then life is definitely good for us!

janelle · 02-05-2004, 02:48 AM

I've never been to Europe so I don't know. On the commercials do they gyrate around sexually as though to simulate intercourse or just treat nudity as it should be treated as normal without the tilltalation?

brooks45 · 02-05-2004, 03:01 AM

<<<<< WONDERS HOW MANY PLAYBOY MAGAZINES ARE IN THE FCC'S BATHROOMS LOL!!

justme23 · 02-05-2004, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by janelle
I've never been to Europe so I don't know. On the commercials do they gyrate around sexually as though to simulate intercourse or just treat nudity as it should be treated as normal without the tilltalation?

Well of course the commercials are somewhat sexual in nature... ppl who enjoy nudity don't wanna see a woman just stand there looking bored. But on the flip side, Janet and Justin were not gyrating and simulating sex. Atleast they weren't in the clip that I saw, but I will admit that I only saw about 20 seconds before the cup was ripped off and about 10 seconds after. Maybe 35 seconds total.

janelle · 02-05-2004, 03:52 AM

Why are the commercials sexual in nature if they are selling a shampoo? Oh don't tell me I already know, sex sells. LOL

The singer, dancers have been gyrating with hip thrusts for a long time. Michael Jackson was the first I believe to grab his crotch on the Super Bowl half time show. How many years ago? Some people are just getting tired of it. And now the Grammys are going to be tape delayed. Keep it on MTV is all parents want, so they know what to expect. It says in the article someone will need to outdo Janet.

And Janet and Justin were gyrating and his song lyrics weren't the cleanest.

Kelsey1224 · 02-05-2004, 12:02 PM

IN MY OPINION...

It was a 'stunt'. It was stupid and tasteless, but it's not the end of the world. The half-time show was already in questionable taste before it ended. If I were a parent watching with my children, I would have turned it off the minute I saw some of the costumes, let alone some of the dancing moves.

Then my children would never have seen what happened...if they even noticed. (Many people were watching and they still didn't even catch it because it happened so quickly.)

If my children did happen see it...it would have provided me with an opportunity for an open discussion about how some people don't always behave appropriately.

JENNIFERCATLADY · 02-05-2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

If my children did happen see it...it would have provided me with an opportunity for an open discussion about how some people don't always behave appropriately.

Kelsey, please don't be offended by what I am about to say....That sounded just like something my mom would have said. She was always big on discussing and debating things. So THANK YOU!!!

On a side note...does anyone else think that this was just one big publicity stunt? Controversy and sex sells. But that's just my opinion.

***lassss*** · 02-05-2004, 01:14 PM

It prolly was a publicity stunt and I feel everyone is making a mountain out of a molehill....big deal her boob was shown...do you know how many times while channel surfing that I have come across a Discovery channel where there was a story about some tribe and all the females were topless....OH but I guess that is educational huh? LOL...how about all the kids who's heroes are football players and some of those players turn out to be drug addicts or wife beaters...or how about those who watch hockey and how violent that can be..I guess it's ok for our kids to see and learn how to fight that way.....so seeing a boob on tv is not a huge deal compared to alot of other things you see on tv. I agree that in the end it shouldn't have been shown on tv but like the previous poster stated..the world isn't going to end.

justme23 · 02-05-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by janelle
And now the Grammys are going to be tape delayed. Keep it on MTV is all parents want, so they know what to expect. It says in the article someone will need to outdo Janet.

You keep mentioning this as if it is a huge deal... I realize your article says they are not required by FCC laws to be on a delay but have you ever watched a live award show of any kind? Ever noticed how curse words are conveniently bleeped out as to not offend sensitive ears like yours? Or how they blur certain offensive T-shirts that may be sporting an alcohol label or a pot leaf. They can't do this w/out a delay. This is NOT something new and NOT something they are doing because of Janet and Justins little stunt.

Kelsey1224 · 02-05-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JENNIFERCATLADY
Kelsey, please don't be offended by what I am about to say....That sounded just like something my mom would have said. She was always big on discussing and debating things. So THANK YOU!!!

On a side note...does anyone else think that this was just one big publicity stunt? Controversy and sex sells. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not offended at all. I am older than most posters on this board. One of the things I learned in parenting was "not to sweat the small stuff." As much as we would like to, we can not shield our children from the world. So we should use whatever opportunities come our way to educate them.

And...of course it was a publicity stunt.