I read over my column when it saw print this week in CBG and was rather surprised to find about a quarter of it missing. While running a section about Howard Stern and censorship that was basically a reiteration of stuff I said earlier in this blog, I then went off on a further tangent which I thought might get some controversy going, since CBGs been pretty quiet lately.
Well, apparently it’s gonna stay quiet, by choice.
Below is the entire section of my column that was deleted without my being informed:
“And every time you see articles about censorship lately, they all keep referring to Janet Jackson
• 
Did you ask the folks at CBG why the column was cut?
I’m surprised that they didn’t notify you. I’ve always had the impression that you were on great terms with Maggie and the staff there. You just don’t cut something like that and not let people know, especially a friend or employee.
I think it doesn’t have anything to do with Janet Jackson’s color. I think it has to do with the puritanical bent of this country lately. Not that it’s been so easy going before, just that with the recent administration pushing their morality on us, I think we’ve become even more uptight as a nation. For good or bad, we as a country take many cues from the white house. Jackie Kennedy had the country dressing more stylishly. Bush has the country uptight. And scared. And divided.
Interesting piece. I personally had never given it a thought, because not only did I pretty much forget about the “breast incident” immediately after learning about it (not having seen it myself), but I didn’t even realize that this was still being talked about. (Don’t read enough editorials, I guess.)
Your SnoopDogg/Aguilera example is interesting, because I think you’re right about how the focus would have been different in that case … but note, that could also have something to do with the fact that Aguilera is (like Timberlake) very young, whereas Snoop (like Janet) is older and more “experienced.” So that would probably skew people’s perceptions of who was the “victim” as much as, if not more so than, skin color.
Perhaps a better substitution would be Madonna for Janet and for Justin … um, I don’t know. A popular young black artist. (I don’t listen to the radio these days, so I’m out of it as far as musical pop culture goes.)
Hard to say how perception would skew in that case. At least for me.
Anyway, interesting bit of pontificating, PAD. That Jackson’s race had anything to do with the public’s reaction had never occurred to me. ‘Tis some good food for thought.
Jason
“…although Justin Timberlake, whose inability to grip the correct section of the costume was very likely responsible for the incident…”
Do you really think it could’ve been an accident? MTV people were hinting that something shocking would happen during the show. Justin sang, “I’m gonna have you naked by the end of this song!” Then the section of costume he did grip tore right off, revealing a decorated bøøb.
Seems clearly planned to me.
I live out in San Diego, and the reaction to Roseanne’s behavior was outrage. Not on a national level (because San Diego is pretty much off the radar to the rest of the country), but people here were pretty angry. I suspect the outrage to Janet Jackson, has nothing to do with her being black, but everything to do with a perceived notion of arrogance on the part of celebrities. An arrogance that says, ‘Hey, I’m famous and can do anything I want.’ For the last couple of years, the entertainment industry had been increasingly pushing the envelope. Well, they decided to push it during the most watched event of the year. Big surprise then it got noticed by a large audience. Coming from a moderate’s perspective, sure, I love to see nudity and sex, but THERE’S A TIME AND PLACE-Superbowl wasn’t it. That’s why Janet is rightly getting the punishment she deserves and why others who had smartly kept a lower profile, now have to suffer.
Interesting points and an interesting hyothetical.
I also agree with some of what my fellow posters have stated thus far.
To be honest, though, the thought of ones race never occured to me. In fact It never occurred to me that a guy I work with is black until someone else grought it up. All this time I just thought of him as ‘Bobby’. What I have focused on in this… fiasco is the overreaction.
I get quite irritated (understatement) whenever someone makes claims as to how civilized or advanced we are as a society. As if we’re so much smarter and more in control of out base instincts than we were hundres of years ago. Suddenly a breast becomes visible and our society is in hysterics and actually (blech!!) making decisions based on those hysterics. A BØØB!! Oh, scourge of our time!!
Finally, I have to say that something is beyond horribly wrong when ANY publication is scared to print an opinion that isn’t all that inflametory to begin with.
Salutations (except to CBG, in this case),
Mitch
Karen wrote:
Not that it’s been so easy going before, just that with the recent administration pushing their morality on us, I think we’ve become even more uptight as a nation. For good or bad, we as a country take many cues from the white house. Jackie Kennedy had the country dressing more stylishly. Bush has the country uptight. And scared. And divided.
Actually couldn’t it also be argued that people with similar views such are yours are trying to push their own view of morality (or lack of) onto people? I think it can be seen both ways. As for your Bush bashing, I hardly think Bush has anything to do with people being uptight — there are always going to be uptight people and there will always be people who are a little too free spirited. Scared? That’s a crock and just an excuse to try to demonize a political party you seem to have a problem with. As for divided, well, it’s been that way for a long time. That’s nothing new.
Interesting article — I can almost see why CBG was concerned, but I certainly wouldn’t have cut it, and I absolutely wouldn’t have carved sections out without talking to you, for pete’s sake. (No pun intended.)
As for the issue itself, I think I’m partially with Karen and partially with Jason (which itself sounds like it violates a few FCC regs, come to think of it). A Snoop/Aguilera pairing might have come off more as an assault, but that strikes me as more a perception of Snoop’s personality than of his race. I like Jason’s idea: make Janet Jackson Madonna (roughly the same age, or at least a lot closer than Aguilera), and make Timberlake … oh, I don’t know … geez, would someone like Usher work? What very little I’ve seen of him suggests young and clean-cut, much as Timberlake was perceived for a while.
It’s a great thought experiment, though I tend to agree with Karen on this point — I find it more indicative of some new hysterical puritanism than I do any sort of racial bias.
Back when this first hit, a friend of mine suggested over on his blog that when he takes over the planet, one of his first edicts will be that all actors and actresses on a given series must all play their roles topless for the first half-dozen episodes. As he put it, “that should be sufficient to desensitize people to casual nipple shots so that we can grow the f*ck up already.”
Couldn’t agree more.
TWL
Um … Dennis?
It seems kind of a strong leap (not to mention a smidge rude) to take Karen’s statement and turn it into an accusation that she lacks morality entirely.
Your supposition’s possible, but there’s certainly a lot of evidence to show that presidents (and First Ladies) do tend to lead the nation in cultural trends. That tends to support her claim over yours.
I’ll leave the political stuff for another time — it’s gonna be a long seven and a half months.
TWL
I was wondering if this is the first time Peter’s column’s been censored, altered or edited without his knowledge? From what I’ve heard about Maggie Thompson’s integrity, she would have notified you about any changes. Possibly either 1) she was unaware of the editing, or 2) it was a very last minute change before publication? I certainly hope it is not another indication of the Bush/FCC “chilling factor” we’re currently witnessing in our media.
PATRICK BUNCH wrote, “That’s why Janet is rightly getting the punishment she deserves…”
Janet Jackson’s getting punished?
SINCE WHEN?!?
And is it on Pay Per View?
Peter, first let me say I wish CBG had not cut the column. But, in retrospect I almost understand it. I feel you are way off base, Peter. Do I feel this “issue” has been blown out of proportion? Absolutely. Is it because she’s Black? You know, I normally don’t dismiss such comments. the Snoop Doggy Dog comment made me think for a split second. But in the end, you come of as another white liberal who is trying to make himself feel better by defending the “oppressed”, as if Janet can’t defend herself. Has she charged racism? Or are you better able to reognize it than she is?
Sorry, but I find the idea that it’s Janet’s race to be the real problem to be laughable, almost a parody of the way some folks immediately shout “racism!” at any opportunity. Unfortunately I think you’re serious.
Bringing up the Lucy Lawless shows how far you’re willing to go to try to make this work–a nipple slip at a hockey game seen by a handful of people (I’m sure more people have downloaded the clip than saw it originally) compared to what seems to have been a staged “accident” during the freaking half time show of the Superbowl! My Uncle Leon dropped his pants at Aunt Betsy’s wedding and that didn’t make the national news either but you don’t see me making political hay out of it.
Oddly enough I just recently read a review of some movie that came in for criticism because it unapologetically showed some black women topless–the claim being that this reinforced the stereotype of Black women as national Geographic primitives. So…get upset over a black breast and you’re a racist who wants to control their sexuality and DON’T get upset over a Black breast and you’re a racist who thinks that all Black women as uncivilized savages…can’t win for losing. The only way out is not to play the game.
The truth behind the controversy:
http://www.q102.com/chio/janet2.jpg
Also, if this was so much about race, why did Lena Horne no state afterward she no longer wanted Janet associated with her biopic? Wouldn’t Ms. Horne take the opportunity to stand by a succeesful fellow black entertainer if she felt she was being wronged? But Ms. Horne was embarrassed. Does that make her part of the conspiracy? Also, PAD, if you actually followed this story, BOTH Justin AND Janet would have been allowed on the Grammys if they BOTH apologized for the incident. He did. She didn’t. Which is her right. So the statement that the white guy can show his face while the black woman has to hide is incendiary garbage that gets us nowhere. If janet apologized and justin didn’t, the black woman would have shown her face. OK?
I meant to add that, all that said, they should have run it or at least told you they were going to cut it. Frankly, I think they did you a favor but that doesn’t excuse the fact that you deserve better treatment from the CBG.
Further, Justin lost a chance to be co-host a recent Motown special because of the incident because it was declared his doing so “would be an insult to the black community”. So this ridiculous event did cost him an opportunity. Or is that okay because it was an “oppressed” group doing the censoring?
Really, PAD, you threw in eveerything but the kitchen sink to make this argument (Halle Berry?) and it just doesn’t hold up.
Dennis V wrote “As for your Bush bashing, I hardly think Bush has anything to do with people being uptight” in response to Karen who wrote “Not that it’s been so easy going before, just that with the recent administration pushing their morality on us, I think we’ve become even more uptight as a nation”
Please note that she said recent administration, not Bush. Bush alone is not the administration. In this case, I would think she was referring more to John Ashcroft (remember him – the one who spent a couple thousand of our tax dollars to cover the statue os Justice, because it has a bare breast) and/or FCC chairman Powell, who swore, before the game was over, to start an investigation.
And still, Bush can be included in this because he’s the one who nominated/appointed them to their respective offices, which I doubt he’d do if he didn’t agree with them.
Dennis,
I’d like you to know I am quite a moral person. I don’t drink and drive, I don’t cheat on my husband, and I try never to lie. My point was that this country is going hysterical over something that should have just been an embarrassment to Janet. I, and many other women, have had the experience of jumping in a pool and having the top of our suits accidently come up. The people who were at the pool with me did not overreact and start banning civil liberties at the pool. They did not tell me I was not welcome to come back. While the superbowl incident may or may not have been an accident (and judging by her reaction, I think it was) the reason it was blown out of proportion is because of the tonor of this country at present. I believe much of this can be lain at the door of the current occupant of the White House. He is running much of his government as an offshoot of his religion. I don’t think the reaction would have been so drastic with another person sitting in that office. And the FCC would not have been so eager to mete out punishement for so many more minor offenses.
Tim,
Thank-you for your support.
“because of the tonor of this country at present”
TONE of this country. Sorry.
And Thanks to you Michael B for putting this more in perspective.
It never occurred to me that the whole brouhaha was about racism. Switch Janet with Madonna, let the same thing happen, and I gotta believe most people would have reacted the same way they did. Of course there’s been a huge over-reaction and of course the more puritanical among us have used the incident as an example of how sinful and wanton this country has become. Myself, I just thought it was crude and inappropriate, much like the way DragonCon in Atlanta has become.
Maybe it’s me, but I just don’t get it. How can anyone say that the Bush administration is not using the JJ bøøb incident to further their goals.
I have been watching the Super Bowl every year for the past 5 or 6 years and some years I watch it alone and some years it’s with friends and family. And every year for those past 5 or 6 years, when ever the half time show started everyone up and left the room, which is the same thing that happened this year. No one who was at my place that night ever actually saw JJ’s exposed bøøb. We were either in the bathroom, getting refreshments or stretching our legs and talking about the game. In fact I didn’t even know something had happened until I heard about it the next day on the radio.
Based on my experience watching Super Bowl games, I think more people heard about the exposed breast than actually saw it.
Now the government through the FCC wants to impose fines and put limits on free speech by declaring certain types of speech indecent. If the JJ bøøb incident isn’t a way for the Bush administration to further restrict our freedoms and instill fear in the American people then I don’t know what is.
Remember, people do not get ideas from books any more, they get them from TV and radio. The Nazis err… I mean the Bush administration already controls a good part of the media and the next step towards fascism is to “burn” off the media they don’t control, which may be used to voice opinions against them.
And remember all of this is being done in the name of decency and to protect you the American people. I think that the fact that JJ is black is not a factor, because the blacks are not the untermench that the middle eastern community is…yet.
Karen– no joke– that was truly an excellent rebuttal.
P.S. Can I join your pool? (Okay, now I’m joking.)
We did what so many “concerned” people should have done – we turned the show off. We found the bumping-and-grinding in the first few minutes offensive enough that we just turned it off.
People watch shows like that to be titillated (pun intended). While that’s fine for adults, we don’t find that to be especially appropriate for our 9-year-old.
I still don’t see how a 2-second exposed breast is somehow more offensive than the rest of the dreck on that stage.
Insideman,
Now I’m blushing….
People watch shows like that to be titillated (pun intended). While that’s fine for adults, we don’t find that to be especially appropriate for our 9-year-old.
So, I take it because you let your 9-year-old watch the game, you feel that the ritualized, glorified violence of two armies of millionnaires pounding one another into paste for control of an oblong ball is especially appropriate for him/her?
Reminds me of some lyrics of a song called “I Was Confused (About the Television Set)” by a sadly defunct local band, Ten Hands:
I watched this show
Just the other night
And I must say
Something was not right.
How come people on television’s weird in the head?
Well, they won’t show sex
But they show a lot of killin’
I guess it must be better
To show blood spillin’
Than to let little Junior see two naked people in bed.
As so often seems to be true, I agree with Tim. I can certainly see why CBG would be worried, but it’s quite something that they didn’t clear the cut with you, or at the least warn you.
And I think the section of article itself has a valid point or five.
And I’m ducking the politics.
I think the whole uproar over this errant “bøøbágë” is hilarious.
When I was but a wee lad, my father took me to see “Dirty Harry”.
Then, a short while later, he took me to a strip joint– while telling my Mom he and I were going out to have steak. (Maybe he meant we were going for a “N.Y. Strip”?)
Anyway, a couple of months after that– he grabbed my Mom’s hand and my hand and dragged us both out of showing of “Play Misty for Me” because he was “offended” by Clint Eastwood’s extremely tame sex scene with Donna Mills in the forest.
What eventually came of all this debauchery?
Why, I’ve dated women who look like Donna Mills my whole life (of course).
Moral? We almost always want what we can’t have.
Those who turned off half-time screaming at their children “Bad show! Bad Show!” or reacted to a little Janet peepage by choking on their “Kitchen Fried Chicken” need to realize one thing:
They’ve just started a whole new generation of Janet Jackson worshippers.
Go put that in your pseudo-Freudian pipes and smoke it, fellas.
Nytwyng,
Actually, my daughter hates football, so she wasn’t even around during the game. However, she likes music and dancing and was starting to gain interest at the halftime show.
Even if she were interested, though, she understands that football is a game. She has played soccer and knows that you have fun when you play and shake hands at the end.
“I don’t think the reaction would have been so drastic with another person sitting in that office.”
Well, I dunno. I remember Al “finger on the pulse of society” Gore attacking that source of all that is evil The Mighty Morphing Power Rangers as “sugary and sociopathic.” This was also the administration that had Janet Reno telling the Senate that if the entertainment industry didn’t voluntarily reduce the amount of violence on TV, “government action will be imperative.”
You’re setting yourself up for a huge letdown if you think Kerry will improve things (though if he doesn’t pull his head out of his ášš soon that will not be much of a possibility anyway).
Bill wrote: “You’re setting yourself up for a huge letdown if you think Kerry will improve things (though if he doesn’t pull his head out of his ášš soon that will not be much of a possibility anyway).”
Bill– speaking for all Democrats everywhere– thanks so much for alerting us to John Kerry’s dire rectal condition.
In the spirit of two party diversity– would you mind helping Senator Kerry out of his delicate situation?
You sound like a strong, stalwart man who has experienced this condition before.
WE SURE COULD USE YOUR HELP!
Maybe they cut it to save you from the embarrassment of you using the race card.
Good G-D.
You’re becoming a sterotype.
No … if he became a stereotype along the lines you imply, he’d be insisting that skin color MUST be the reason for it.
He didn’t. He said he was curious about whether it was a factor, and if so how much. He proposed a thought experiment.
How exactly is that becoming a stereotype, or even “playing the race card”? Acknowledging the card’s in the deck isn’t quite the same thing.
TWL
Ok to begin with i actually missed the actually nipslip but was shocked to find a local newspaper with the breast in question on the front page of the morning edition.Nice ,wonder if what Britney or christina would have the same coverage.
The point of it was Snoop and Christina is dead on.MTV is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to this .Lotsa ášš shakin rap videos and angry brothers on the real world but they claim to be all about breaking down stereotypes.
Our current President and his religious fanaticism is the reason behind all this censorship protect our children b.s.
After all al queda,the columbine kids and timothy mcveigh all did their evil deeds as a result of Stern,Bare breasts and music videos.
Mark,
I applaud your daughter’s display of taste in her dislike of football. Her interest (or lack thereof) aside, that didn’t really answer the question, though…unless I’m mistaken, you seemed to imply that watching the bone-crunching of the Super Bowl is appropriate for a child, while a 2-second (if that) flash of a human breast is not. I must ask…what part of it being “just a game” makes football’s inherent violence (Last I looked, soccer – of any age group – did not require the player to wear what amounts to padded armor to protect himself from the other players.) “youth appropriate” while the equally valid argument can be made that the halftime show was “just a performance” doesn’t seem to hold water with most folks?
Insideman–sorry to have evidently hurt your feelings. Maybe I was harsh. I was actually trying to point out that Kerry has shown a disturbing lack of concern this past week as his polls have sunk in the face of a well coordinated attack and his own misstatements. (one poll had him ahead by double digits a few weeks back–I see now that Bush is ahead by a statistically insignificant 3 points. A possible 15 point reversal is sort of grounds for concerm don’tcha think?).
But I take it back. John, you’re doing great. Keep it up. More of the same. Rope a dope, that’s the ticket. Let these precious early months slip by, you can always get back those undecideds that the Republicans secured by portraying you as a waffler. Hey–those “liar” charges sure didn’t stick to Gore and look how great he’s been doing!
Personally I’d love to have a real debate by two candidates (3 if you count nader) that have different views on how to best do things. But if Kerry lets these early days slip by it will have all the drama and suspense of Clinton vs Dole.
Bill, I cannot possibly see how you think you hurt my feelings. I could not have my feelings hurt by someone I do not know or have a personal connection with.
That said, you bring up many valid points and thoughtful ideas in your subsequent post.
I just disagree with your sense of urgency. This will most likely be a see-saw battle in the early months– with lots of up and down moments for BOTH candidates.
Keeping recent history first and foremost in my mind– most polls have shown that the vast amount of truly “undecided” voters in previous elections did not make up their minds about who they were going to vote for until they got near their polling place.
As someone mentioned above– it’s going to be a long 7 and 1/2 months. I don’t think Kerry going snowboarding for a couple of days while Bush launches a massive, early (too early in my mind) commerical buy is really going to change a thing.
Like most Basketball and Football games– I think the contest between two worthy opponents is often best savored in the last few moments.
Nytwyng,
Wearing pads is for protection – and when my daughter played soccer she wore them on her legs. When she rides a bike she wears a helmet to protect her head.
I played football with no pads in the neighbor’s yard growing up when I was younger than my daughter is now – but I didn’t know squat about “the birds and the bees”. Competetive sports have physical exertion and contact as a given. If she had wanted to watch the football game I would have let her.
Would I let her watch “Braveheart” or “Saving Private Ryan”? No. However, contact sports don’t have that level of violence. It’s like the difference between a kiss on “Seventh Heaven” or letting it all hang out on “Sex and the City”. One you allow your kids to see, the other you don’t.
“But in the end, you come of as another white liberal who is trying to make himself feel better by defending the “oppressed”, as if Janet can’t defend herself. Has she charged racism? Or are you better able to reognize it than she is?”
Okay, I’ve reread this several times and still don’t know what the hëll you’re talking about.
I’m not trying to defend anyone. I’m speculating that white America is reacting differently to the sexual display of a Black woman being denuded by a White male than they would to the sight of a White Woman being denuded by a Black man.
Has she charged racism? Not to my knowledge. If she is thinking it, I doubt she’d say it; that’ll just set off a whole ‘nother mess I’m sure she doesn’t want. On the other hand, a black columnist in the NY “Daily News” less than a week after it happened opined that her skin tone was factoring into the degree of backlash (although he didn’t bring up the White Male/Black Male angle). I dismissed the notion out of hand at the time, but the staying power of this idiocy makes me now think he had a point.
As for Lena Horne, she may simply have thought the entire display in such poor taste that she didn’t want to be attached to it in any way. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with my observations as to how White America is reacting.
“Further, Justin lost a chance to be co-host a recent Motown special because of the incident because it was declared his doing so “would be an insult to the black community”. So this ridiculous event did cost him an opportunity. Or is that okay because it was an “oppressed” group doing the censoring?”
It’s not “okay” particularly, but it certainly would seem to indicate that there are some in the Black community who indeed feel that there are unfair racial aspects at play. In other words, they agree with what I posted initially. So thanks for providing back up to what I said and blowing a hole in your own argument. That was considerate of you.
PAD
“Maybe they cut it to save you from the embarrassment of you using the race card.
“Good G-D.
“You’re becoming a sterotype.”
See, whereas *I* thought that, in order to play the race card, one usually has to be *of* that race. Far more stereotypical is the type of person who disagrees with me, not by actually addressing the validity or lack thereof, but rather going straight for the old reliable ad hominem attack.
“How exactly is that becoming a stereotype, or even “playing the race card”? Acknowledging the card’s in the deck isn’t quite the same thing.”
I know that, Tim, but apparently he doesn’t. It’s a pretty stereotypical response.
PAD
Peter:
First off, I believe Janet Jackson being hounded by the media is more about her actions, considering most of the arguments I’ve heard involve morals and family values, especially with this being a presidential election year.
Secondly, when I first saw BID this week in CBG, I did not originally notice anything amiss because the column has varied in length before.
But did someone at CBG try to contact you and were not able to before this issue went to press?
And are all the other commenters certain the decision was made by either Maggie or someone below her? I would be more inclined to suspect someone above her connected more directly with Krause Publishing itself in this case.
Just my opinion folks.
I don’t think race had anything to do with it. To use an example with Madonna (since you brought her up first, PAD), in her “Like A Prayer” video a black statue of a saint came to life and kissed Madonna. I don’t even remember the name of the actor playing the, er, statue, but Madonna lost her Pepsi contract because of the video. I’m not sure how race enters into it — in the video Madonna was dancing in front of burning crosses too — but I don’t recall an uproar against the black actor.
For a contemporary parallel, every time Britney Spears does something racy, it’s big news. There’s no race, simply watching someone who’s ostensibly a singer pushing the limits of decency/prurience/t&a more and more to keep getting headlines and keep selling records. I’m surprised Janet Jackson had to stoop to this level — she hadn’t been escalating the amount of skin over the years and she’s been doing fine — but I don’t think the outcry would have been any less if we’d seen Christina’s or Britney’s nipple.
I think this outroad is *definitely* because of politics. Bush (and, by extension, the Republican Party) is aiming to get the votes of the convervatives and/or Christians who want all this gosh-darn immorality stopped. (Note: This is not ALL Christians, so please don’t start posting how you go to Church but you loved the nipple, or you’re a convervative who listens to Stern. I’m referring to those who feel government should stay out of people’s lives, unless it’s to stamp out what they consider indecent.) The amentment to ban homosexual marriages is still being written. Howard Stern is under attack (and I haven’t heard specifically what he said to warrant the fines; was it worse than what he’s been saying for years?) and there’s a push to up the fines for good ol’ indecency. Apparently no one can choose to flip the station from Howard Stern (like I do — hate the man, hate his show) or let some people get married elsewhere. Sigh.
Tony Isabella stated in one of his columns that he was asked to concentrate more on comics than some of the social issues he was bringing up. Could this be a case of wanting Peter to stick to the subject of the Guide? Personally, I loved Tony’s social comments and didn’t mind, but some readers may read for comics info only.
By far the best commentary I’ve seen about the entire Janet Jackson controversy was how SOUTH PARK handled it on its season premiere last week.
SPOILER WARNING: For those who haven’t seen it yet and want to wait for when its rerun, please skip the following synopsis:
The kids manage to buy real “ninja weapons” at a fair and go out to “play ninja,” with each of the four main SP characters depicted in a more realistic “martial arts” (not quite anime) style. Eventually, they battle Butters’ Dr. Chaos alter-ego. Kenny uses his weapons, throwing stars — and hits Butters in the eye with one. The kids are so terrified over what their parents will do to them that, at first, Kyle actually agrees with Cartman on a course of action! And they try to disguise Butters as a dog so they can take him to a vet instead of the hospital.
Everything leads up to Cartman getting TOO into his ninja character and deciding to use his “power” of invisibility to sneak across a stage where an auction is going on. He then strips off his clothes (which don’t become invisible), and walks stark naked across the stage. Just about this time Butters comes out on the stage and faints.
There’s an immediate town meeting, and the kids are sure they’re all going to be grounded forever for Butters’ injury. But the parents completely ignore the violent play. They’re more incensed over Cartman walking around naked in front of everyone, including the public access channel covering the auction. Cartman explains it was a “wardrobe malfunction,” to no avail. The rest of the kids walk out of the town hall, relieved and ready to play ninja again.
Oh, and they did also have Cartman, having seen THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, making some cracks about Jews in general and Kyle in particular.
Oh, come on. I’m not going to defend CBG cutting part of the BID out. I won’t say that they can’t either. But maybe they did it because you’ve never said anything quite this dumb in print before. Is it because she’s black? No. It’s because people who wanted this “culture war” took the ball that they were given and ran with it. It’s because a less then two second flash that almost nobody saw at the time was shown over and over and over and over and over again by conservative pundits on FOX, CNN and MSNBC and talked up more then the game by the conservative chat guys for a week after it was done and gone. It wouldn’t have mattered one wit if it had been a white singer or not.
Just look at other things that came from race being a factor in something and how whatever it was played out. If something starts from race it most often continues down that road. This started from a dumb stunt and has since snowballed into something that’s jammed up a number of people who aren’t black. Bubba is white. Stern is white. Most the other DJs that have gotten smacked on the hand and told to tone it down or else have been white. Five second delays don’t care about color. Nothing that has stemmed from this has had to do with color. Most of it has had to do with sex. Showing it in some way or form or talking about it. Or about words. Bono is getting threatend with huge fines for saying a word he shouldn’t have. Last time I looked, Bono was white.
If this had started with Janet and continued to progress with mostly black singers, groups or pop entertainment I might go with you on his one. But it hasn’t. It’s nailed and is nailing everyone. Her color didn’t matter. It was just the last straw for some people and those that wanted to use something like this to do exactly what they’re doing found their weapon and their public support in her bøøb flash. The tempest in the c-cup as it were.
“I don’t think race had anything to do with it. To use an example with Madonna (since you brought her up first, PAD), in her “Like A Prayer” video a black statue of a saint came to life and kissed Madonna. I don’t even remember the name of the actor playing the, er, statue, but Madonna lost her Pepsi contract because of the video. I’m not sure how race enters into it — in the video Madonna was dancing in front of burning crosses too — but I don’t recall an uproar against the black actor.
“For a contemporary parallel, every time Britney Spears does something racy, it’s big news. There’s no race, simply watching someone who’s ostensibly a singer pushing the limits of decency/prurience/t&a more and more to keep getting headlines and keep selling records. I’m surprised Janet Jackson had to stoop to this level — she hadn’t been escalating the amount of skin over the years and she’s been doing fine — but I don’t think the outcry would have been any less if we’d seen Christina’s or Britney’s nipple.”
Okay, but this is another case of someone pretty much supporting the point I was making without seeming to realize it.
Madonna did something outrageous. Christina or Britney do something outrageous. And people react, and then it’s gone. Pepsi dropped Madonna. Okay. But it’s not as if Pepsi, Coke, Dr. Pepper and 7-Up all said, “That’s it, no more female rock stars!” and investigations were launched.
The Janet Jackson situation has gone way beyond proportionate response. We’re seeing a nationwide crackdown that movie producers, TV producers, radio producers, are all saying specifically relates to Janet Jackson. It is completely over the top (no pun intended), so much so that I am prompted to wonder whether something truly fundamental to white society is driving it, perhaps even without consciously being aware of it.
I’m not willing to say it’s politics as usual. Politics taking swings at the entertainment industry is nothing new. But everything from “E.R.” and “NYPD Blues” deleting nudity to Howard Stern being clamped down on as never before are being tied by spokesmen to Janet Jackson.
It’s as if it’s developing a life of its own, building upon itself. People who are being censored are citing Janet Jackson, politicians are blaming her to use as a rallying point for hearings. Citing handfuls of instances of White Women Behaving Badly can’t begin to compare to the lynch mob mentality of every aspect of the entertainment industry apparently using her as a whipping girl.
And what is, as I said, the dividing line? What’s different about her from Madonna, Britney and Christina (aside from her brother being, well, kinda weird.)
You folks really believe that if a black singer rips the blouse off a white singer, the focus isn’t going to be on her nudity, but rather on glorifying predatory males and sexual assault? I can just see it: “The Superbowl half time show was nothing but a dramatization of the objectification of women so prevalent in the hateful lyrics of gangstas!”
If you really believe that the news coverage and slant of the investigations would be exactly the same as they are now, okay. But me, I’m not so sure. And if the race of who’s doing what to whom really would have an impact, as I suspect it might…then who’s to know for sure how much skin color is playing a part here?
PAD
“If this had started with Janet and continued to progress with mostly black singers, groups or pop entertainment I might go with you on his one. But it hasn’t. It’s nailed and is nailing everyone. Her color didn’t matter. It was just the last straw for some people and those that wanted to use something like this to do exactly what they’re doing found their weapon and their public support in her bøøb flash.”
And again, my point is being made for me. I’m speculating that maybe what *made* the “last straw” is because it was black breast being flashed. That what enables Stern et al to blame her is that she’s Black.
It does kind of fascinate me to see minds slamming shut on this, though…and hurling insults to boot, as I expected (the “dumb idea” crack, yes, that was very nice.) I generally find that any idea that’s so repellant that people won’t even consider it is an idea closer to the truth than people care to admit.
PAD
“Ok to begin with i actually missed the actually nipslip but was shocked to find a local newspaper with the breast in question on the front page of the morning edition.Nice ,wonder if what Britney or christina would have the same coverage.“
Is this irony intentional? Britney with coverage? Not gonna happen!
CJA
No, it doesn’t support your idea. It wasn’t because she was black that it was the last straw. It was the time and place. (I may get this name wrong. Sorry.) I think it was Lil’ Kim that came out on an MTV awards show a few years ago wearing a purple pasty and nothing else on one bøøb (and God knows she’s worn worse stuff on TV since then). Then Diana Ross fondled her bøøb on national TV. This program aired several time on MTV and was never edited. The photos of this were in the pop culture mags for months after and in their year end wrap ups. This got frowns from the right but nothing this huge came out of it because, duh, it was MTV. That seemed to be the way of saying, “you know what they do on that channel. It’s expected.”
MTV, VH-1 and BET all show vids all the time with black woman flashing more body parts then Janet did for far longer. And then you move to the next vid with the same thing. People and parents gripe about it but, hey, it’s cable and they do that on those channels and you should know better etc.
This happened on network TV, in the early hours of the evening and on a “family” event. We can argue the whole sex vs violence thing later. Violent or not, the Super Bowl is considered a family event. You add all that up and you get an event that would have been used by the culture war crew no matter the color of the singer’s skin.
This has been coming for a while now. There has been a growing feeling of backlash for modern pop culture brewing for a while. The conservative chat shows have been pushing the “culture war” hard for a little over a year now. It had to happen and she just gave them the thing they wanted.
Look, I think it’s dumb as a brick that this garbage is happening. I think the outrage expressed by many in the conservative movement was about as real as a three dollar bill. It’s about politics and power. It’s stupid that so much is being made of this flash that most people didn’t know happened until the were told about it the next day.
But I think it’s just as dumb to drag race into this. I didn’t shut my mind to this thought right after reading your posting. I read this in other places weeks ago. The local free press is aimed at the black community in Richmond and tried to run this one by its readers. They didn’t go for the idea either. I’ve talked about this with a few people I know as well before seeing it posted here. I didn’t see it then and I don’t now. To me, the idea that this is about race is just dumb.