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
• 
Just as a note:
Calvin Broadus performs under the stage name Snoop Dogg. At one point, he used the stage name Snoop Doggy Dogg (note the double “g” in “Dogg”), but he dropped the “Doggy” some time in the mid-’90s (after being tried for and acquitted of murder charges).
Ms. Aguilera’s correct first name is “Christina,” not “Christine.”
Sorry, but I’m too much of a music geek not to offer the correction. Otherwise, I found the article quite thought-provoking, and am saddened that CBG chose to edit it without consulting you.
Also, Tim Lynch posted:
“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. “
Usher was indeed the first person that came to my mind when I read Jason’s proposal, though Usher’s new album is a bit on the controversial side, as well, amid allegations that it’s about his relationship with a member of TLC, including that relationship’s demise due to infidelity on Usher’s part. Still, he’s the closest I can think of as a Justin Timberlake for this analogy, unless you want to skew REALLY young and use, say, Bow Wow or Lil’ Romeo.
Oh, and I think in this example, Madonna would have been blamed, simply because she’s Madonna and she’s been desperately trying to “shock” audiences since the start of her career. No way anyone would believe it was a “wardrobe malfunction” were it her, and the young black male would almost certainly face little if any flack. Think about it: who was seen as the instigator of the infamous lesbian kisses between Madonna, Britney, and Christina?
Of course, Madonna would have just resulted in a collective yawn from society. Rosie O’Donnell had a great line in A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN that sure seems to apply here: she said of Madonna’s character (who was planning a similar “wardrobe malfunction”), “You think there are men in this country who ain’t seen your bosoms?”
In general, I do tend to agree that the reaction is more “hysterical puritanism” (great band name, that) and less racially motivated, but I do find Peter’s piece very thought-provoking, and I am not 100% convinced he’s wrong.
Also, Kevin 251 asks:
“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.”
The “something shocking” that was planned was Justin’s appearance. Justin was not announced or promoted as part of the show, his appearance was a surprise. Whether or not “the bøøbìë incident” (as I like to call it) was planned, what they were hinting at was Justin’s guest appearance. (Which really, wasn’t that big a shock — most pre-show speculation was that the surprise was going to be Michael Jackson joining his sister on stage).
Julio Diaz wrote: “Whether or not ‘the bøøbìë incident’ (as I like to call it) was planned, what they were hinting at was Justin’s guest appearance. “
I keep hearing this, and I find it impossible to believe, mostly because I didn’t watch the Half-time show, walking away saying “MTV? Janet Jackson? Justin Timberlake? I’d rather bash my face into the wall.” If I knew about it, and I knew about it before all of this mess, then it can’t have been planned as that shocking a surprise.
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.
Or it could just be that people have considered your idea, but they don’t give it much credibility and thus dismiss it. It seems to me that it may be you who can’t admit that maybe your idea is simply offbase and not plausable.
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.
Actually NYPD Blue decided not to trim their steamy love scene (although there was a rumor out there that they may have did this in one time zone on the west coast). Anyway, things will blow over soon enough so you can count on seeing more of Dennis Franz’s ášš in all its full glory! 🙂
One more time for clarity. The problem with the bøøb flash (and I don’t believe for a second it was accidental), was that it was during PRIME TIME BROADCAST TELEVISION. There are established rules for broadcast standards at different times of the day. Nudity is not OK on any BROADCAST program, without special permission. Mostly it’s PBS stations that get the special permission because of some of their National Geographic programming and some of the British dramas, or on news programming. That’s it.
Cable/satellite is a differnt story. You have to ask for and pay for those channels. Off air stations don’t leave you that option. Yes, you can always use the “if you don’t like it, turn the channel” arguement, but there was NO WARNING to parents that there was to be partial nudity. It was a big “shock” that MTV, Janet and Justin cooked up. Finally it was a sporting event, not a concert series. Musical performances are traditionally part of the Super Bowl halftime show, but not nudity.
PAD makes valid points about the black/white issue, but I don’t feel it applies entirely to this situation. It’s about pre-established FCC guidelines that were violated (all puns intended).
Dean wrote:
Our current President and his religious fanaticism is the reason behind all this censorship protect our children b.s.
Where in the world do you get that the President is some sort of religious fanatic? Just because he believes in God and attends church? Bush is hardly pushing any “religious fanaticism” upon anybody. People need to stop being so afraid of religion and blowing things out of proportion so much. It coming to the point where if you simply say you believe in God you can almost count on being labeled as a fanatic.
>
Sorry to nipick (and go off-topic), but as a fan, I can’t let this go… it’s “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.” No ‘The’, no ‘g’on ‘Morphin’
Alan.
“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.”
Or just plain wrong. Besides, we considered it and, upon solemn contemplation, came to the reasoned conclusion that you were having an off day.
You can bring up all of the past transgressions by pop idols you want, what made this different was the venue. The reason it has staying power was that it infuriated those who,rightly or wrongly, have increasingly felt that they are losing the ability to choose what they can watch or listen to.
If this had been the MTV movie awards…huge collective snore. Superbowl=brouhaha. Simple as that.
Insideman,
I don’t think that Dole ever recovered from the early, Ðìçk Morris led attack ads. They minimized his convention bounce and set the defensive tone for the campaign.
I agree that this will be a close race and could easily go either way–I am astounded by folks like PAD who say that they don’t think Kerry has a chance–but I think Kerry is making a huge mistake right now. If he loses they will all point to this time as one of the big factors.
Interesting post, Mr. David. I myself have considered this possibility, as it was forced in my face by a woman who hinted that my being a white male is the cause of society’s problems. As for the actual issue, though…
I think it’s likely that her race plays a *part* in why Jackon’s received so much more flack than Timberlake, but I don’t think that it’s the only reason. Let’s face it – the media loves to harp on anything one of the famous Jacksons does. Would she be receiving all this presumably unwanted attention if Michael Jackson weren’t in the news right now due to charges of child molestation? I’m inclined to doubt it.
I also think that the fact that she’s a woman is what has made her more the object of criticism than Timberlake. The unfortunate truth is that women are still not 100% equal to men when it comes to the corporate and entertainment worlds.
Though your post, PAD, was thought provoking, especially the hypothetical Snoop-Dogg scenario, I think that to boil all of this down so that it is only a race issue is to ignore all of the other factors involved.
Although I disagree with your assessment, I fear that it may espouse from my optimistic view of society. Every time I meet someone with strong convictions of anti-somebody for a stupid reason, I just can’t wrap my head around it.
[b]”You think I
Maybe they thought what I did about your shoddy race theory: If it had been Madonna and not Janet Jackson, the SAME ÐÃMN BRUHAHA would’ve happened.
I’m not saying the whole thing isn’t stupid, but it’s not about race.
These are the kind of issues that are most important to this country? NUDITY and WORDS! I cant believe that we live in such a puritanical and oppressed country. What happened to the attitudes and feelings of almost 3 years ago when the most important thing was for all of us to take care of each other and hug our kids? Our country really did change that day. Now instead of hope and dreams that faced us each day all that I can see we have to look forward to is the fear and doom and gloom of a repressed culture, a weak economy and a government that treats us all as children. Gay marriage, the FCC, Patriot Act all things limiting our personal rights as Americans. If I wanted to be told what to watch, who to marry, what religion to believe, and a government keeping secret files on citizens there are a few countries I could move to that are like that. I think Peter is on to something. I didn’t think so at first. But, all we are looking at is the surface. The headline. He’s looking deeper than that. The big picture. Why is this happening? Martha Stewart, Howard Stern, Janet Jackson are the headlines. I want the story. The real story. I am so frustrated that the government is coming closer and closer into my home and they have no right limiting our Rights. And that is what this is. BIgger picture people. I wish I knew the end result but I am definately seeing the steps being taken to lead to a different and not for the better country. They won. For whatever reasons they crashed those planes they have changed our lives, our country, our freedoms forever.
Well, I’m sorry they cut your article, but I think you’re starting with a few faulty premises:
1. I don’t know anyone who buys that the “wardrobe malfunction” was accidental. Unlike Lucy Lawless, Janet Jackson didn’t react with any surprise over what Justin did. A lot of people snickered and laughed at Lucy, but everyone knew that what happened to her was an accident. Both CBS and MTV gave advance hints that something “hot” was going to happen at the half-time show. People gave Lucy a pass because it was a legitimate accident. Janet isn’t being forgiven because it was obviously staged.
2. As for Roseanne’s rendition of the National Anthem, I don’t where you were, but she was pummelled in the media for months after that, including demands that she publicly apologize to the descendents of Francis Scott Key.
3. Remember the Madonna-Christine-Brittney liplock at the Grammies? They also got hit in the media for weeks after. True, it died down after a only a few weeks, but I think Janet’s stunt is being used as shorthand for a lot of media events that many feel have crossed a line, including this one.
4. Howard Stern isn’t blaming Janet Jackson for his most recent issues, at least not entirely. For the past couple of weeks, he has focused on the message that the FCC and Clear Channel have targeted him for attack because he criticized Bush.
5. Lest we’ve forgotten, Michael Powell, one of the first people to jump on the soap box and launch an investigation, is black. So, there is definitely more to the outrage over this than just uptight white America freaking out of a black woman not knowing her “place.”
Personally, I think the reaction to a bare breast in the middle of an event filled with commercials about farting horses and erectile dysfunction to be ridiculous and I think a lot of people, both in and out of the Bush administration are using it to further their agendas, but to say that the reaction is racially motivated is a bit of a stretch. Most people I talk to aren’t all that outraged anymore and have moved on to other issues. Only media pundits are really keeping alive in the public’s mind.
Janet, race and AL queda
Interesting twist PAD’s got, where there may be a racial angle to the Janet mess. I just don’t think it’s the real fuel that’s keeping this culture war fire a blazin’.
Again, I don’t know that PAD thinks this either b/c he seemed to indicate CBG needed some controversey. It might be one of those things where it’s a possible take – let’s hear what everyone has to say. Then again he may believe it. All I can say is that I believe it was the nipple that broke the camel’s back. What a prudish camel then, huh?
I think if we interchanged similar celebrities in this whole ordeal the result would have been the same. It was OBVIOUSLY a planned stunt. She just “happened” to have nipple jewelry? It just HAPPENED to coincide with the “naked by the end of the song” line? WHo was buying the accident thingy? And it’s women’s clothing and a teen idol like Timberlake who is probably more
adept at removing women’s clothing than most women. This was NO accidento. And for those that believe it – yikes. I thought this level of pinhead was limited to the 12 people who sat on the OJ trial.
Of course, if it had been a Snoop Dog orsomeone similar – the media shift might have been different. Bill O Reilly and women’s groups everywhere would have charged the gangsta rapper with being a mysoginist – it was all his idea
– it degrades women etc. Even if the Snooper had blood red eyes, his muzzle half buried in a bag of Pringles and with no recollection of where he even WAS at the superbowl – he would have STILL been portrayed as the evil Gangsta Rapper who defiled a lovely lady.
And of course if underneath Jackson’s faulty wardrobe were revealed the following:
– pen written, JT wuz here nizzle
– Snoop’s wuz here, nizzle-fizzle
– a makeshift “Take a Number” dispenser, now serving #1,001
She’d STILL be portrayed as the hapless female victim. But it didn’t happen that way. IF we replaced Janet with a lighter skinned substitute – we’d have the same problem. If it was Christina Aguilera – it’d be the same uproar. I doubt race had ANYTHING to do with it.
If it was Madonna – it would have been simply spun that the entertainer that made MTV trashy in the 80’s is back to her old tricks. It would’ve produced the same results no matter who it was. Well okay, that’s not necessarily true .. .if it was Golden Girl, Bea Arthur, there would have certainly been outrage and public tumult, but not of the same vein. SuperBowl parties around the world would have been decorated with regurgitated bufallo wings and Doritos.
A large portion of America is uneasy with the envelope that has been pushed over time. I say TURN THE TV OFF. But others want to santize it to their likings or for the approrpiateness of their 4 year old child who they plant in front of it for hours a day because it’s cheaper then a babysitter.
Babysitter – $1,000 a month plus gum.
TV – $150.00 – $185.00 with pørņ.
It’s economics.
I guess people overreacted because of WHERE Ms. Jackson showed her nipple. People have to be more aware of what’s coming up. I have an insane radar for this stuff. If I’m watching Seinfeld or a Bond movie – if I sense a sexual moment coming up and there’s a parent in the room – I FLIP THE CHANNEL to the Muppets or something. If it was going to be a REALLY GOOD and STEAMY scene I flip the channel to the Muppets and run upstairs to the other TV.
If there is a child in the room? Well if they are under 12 a good whack with a semi-stiff pillow usually puts them down for 45 seconds and enough time to savor any TV skin.
Now if I’m watching Spongebob Squarepants and a cartoon Britney perfroms falacio on him (is that even possible?)- then yes, it was out of the blue and all should be outraged. . .well except Spongebob.
But before the nip-slip – the half time show was pretty raunchy anyhow. Is it any more harmful to a child that Jackson showed a nipple as opposed to the usual bump and grind stuff? If no nipple was ever shown was it appropriate for a 7 year old to hear the lyrics and watch the stripper like dancing. Probably not – so these puritan parents should have just CHANGED THE CHANNEL before the while “WARDROBE MALFUNCTION” since the entire production was raunchy and innappropriate. Why did they wait until the nip-slip? People this stupid seem like the exact kind that would BELIEVE it was a wardrobe malfunction anyway!
Go WRITE to Viacom – boycott – use your money – don’t use the government, though. I want the government on more important tasks, like fining Osama is and the rest of AL Queda – not who was behind Janet’s “faulty wardrobe.”
Yeah, I’ll feel safer if we have a commission and public trial where Janet and a gaggle of French designers squabble about an errant button or snap.
But if the governemtn is destined to get to the buttom of it – then so be it. If they ever find out who was responsible for the faulty wardrobe – I want that information PUBLIC. I want the designer make and brand because that nipple popped out of that garmet VERY EASILY. My wife will be mandated to buy only this designer’s clothing b/c I can’t stand FUMBLING with bluses and bras for endess minutes because I can’t find the clasp, the thingy, the hook, the ladder, the combination, the skeleton key – whatever.
So at the end of it we may be living in a nuclear holocaust – but I’ll be able to get to second base easily.
That’s the government at work for you.
Where in the world do you get that the President is some sort of religious fanatic? Just because he believes in God and attends church?
No, not because of that. It’s more things like:
(1) he puts everything in stark Manichean good-vs-evil terms, which tends to be the mark of a fanatic (religious or otherwise)
and
(2) he tells foreign parliaments that “God told me to strike at Saddam and so I did”.
That’s the sort of thing that causes me worry, not his churchgoing.
TWL
Janet Jackson’s BLACK??????
Den posted: “3. Remember the Madonna-Christine-Brittney liplock at the Grammies? They also got hit in the media for weeks after. True, it died down after a only a few weeks, but I think Janet’s stunt is being used as shorthand for a lot of media events that many feel have crossed a line, including this one.”
For the sake of accuracy: The infamous liplock took place at the MTV Video Music Awards — on cable — not on the Grammys (note correct spelling) — which go out on broadcast television — though certainly, broadcast outlets replayed the tame kisses ad nauseum for weeks to follow (and frankly, I don’t see a problem with that, but then, I support the legalization of gay marriage and think there’s no reason TV shouldn’t show any two people kissing that want to, as long as nobody’s getting hurt or being forced to do it against their will).
Also, Cheesey E. posted: “It was OBVIOUSLY a planned stunt. She just “happened” to have nipple jewelry?”
Believe it or not, thousands of people wear nipple jewelery in piercings every day, without any intent to expose their breasts on national television. I’m doing so right now (sorry if that’s too much info). Whether or not the “bøøbìë incident” was an accident, the fact that she has a pierced nipple shouldn’t be taken as evidence one way or the other — that’s simply a personal choice, just like piercing any other body part or getting tattoos.
I’m not saying it wasn’t planned (I believe that they at the least meant to partially remove Janet’s garment, though I’m not sure whether the lace was supposed to keep her covered), and I certainly don’t believe MTV was unaware of the plans. But claiming her choice to have a piercing as evidence is simply uneducated.
I don’t think it has anything to do with race for MOST of America, but maybe SOME of America, though the thought had never occurred to me.
I’m surprised Maggie didn’t tell you. Was it, perhaps, a mistake as opposed to an intential no-notification?
Personally, I think the idea is spurious. I was kidding above, but (and I suppose this IS racist) I’ve never considered JJ black. Not that it would matter if I had.
Thank you Dominic, I said days after 9/11 when Bush and crew started announcing their evil ideas (patriot act, no nail clippers on airplanes, etc.) that the terrorists accomplished their goal, and did even more damage to America than they could have ever expected… They allowed Pope Bush to push his Jesus-freak agenda on America and most Americans were ignorant enough to thank him for it….
Well, to be honest, if it had been Madonna instead of Janet, I don’t think anyone would believe for a moment that it wasn’t staged. Especially with her track record.
I don’t have a problem with the FCC enforcing it’s rules and fines. What’s the big deal? So a few shock jocks can’t say a few expletives on air any more and people have to put on a few more clothes. OH MY GOD! The world is going to end if that happens!
If it shuts up a few more trash talkers like the idiot that suggested someone should kill four more civil rights leaders so we could take the whole week off for Martin L. King Day, so much the better.
And of course, no one seems to have a problem with the government telling stations that they HAVE to enforce the Fairness Act, or that you can’t run certain political commercials about candidates during a sixty-day window, exactly when most people are actually making their final decisions about who to vote for. No, pointing out things that you believe is wrong or even right about a candidate is campaign corruptness.
I guess it’s not censorship that bothers people , it’s what kind and who you’re censoring.
After read all these posts I think that Insideman and Bill Mulligan should have a current events debate show on CNN or MSNBC — oh, and on HBO late-nite: “Karen’s Pool Party” Woooo Hoooo!
I have to disagree with you on the whole race card thing, I think this was just another MTV oriented mess that got blown out of proportion by right wing wacko’s. Was it an accident, or “Woredrobe Malfunction”? I really dont think so, because Jackson clearly is wearing an appliance to cover the nipple, and i think it was another attempt by MTV, like the Britney/Madonna/Christina Kiss, to cash in on sexual innuendo. But it backfired on them, or at least the media took notice that some people (probobly the same people that say the Football players pants are to tight or a Doritos commercial was too provocative) complained and they made it sound like a bigger deal than it is. And because its an big Election Year, then you got the politicians going nuts stepping over each other trying to please these people who were morally offended by seeing a bøøb for half a second. And all this going on as the President and key members of his Administration are refusing to testify to an Independant Comission on 9/11 that might show they ignored warnings from certain people (like the “out of the loop” Terrorism Czar) that lead to the attack happening. Gee, I wonder which story I feel is more important to the welfare of the country?
Nivek posted: “I really dont think so, because Jackson clearly is wearing an appliance to cover the nipple”
Are people really this sheltered about piercings? The jewelery is called a nipple shield, and it’s a fairly common piece of jewelery to wear in that type of piercing, even among folks with no intent to bare their breasts on national television. I simply don’t see the jewelery as evidence of intent, and I think that declaring it as such shows ignorance of the so-called “modern primative” movement (piercings, tattoos, etc.).
Again, folks, I’m not saying this wasn’t planned. I’m just saying that the piercing and Ms. Jackson (if you’re nasty)’s choice of jewelery are not compelling evidence one way or the other. Google “body modification” and you should find some enlightening results.
Wait… Christina’s white? I thought she was of some sort of Latino persuasion.
For the sake of accuracy: The infamous liplock took place at the MTV Video Music Awards — on cable — not on the Grammys
Like there’s a difference between one idiotic award show and another. 🙂
Never once thought about the race thing. I have thought about gender bias though. There were two of them involved. Haven’t heard of [i]him[/i] getting taken to the wood shed like she was.
I suppose we just need a person to stand up to the “religious freaks” and quote the Man himself “He without sin, cast the first stone”.
(Because I believe there were two people involved in THAT one also, in THAT one we only hear about them wanting to stone the woman too…OH YEAH that’s just a fictional account made up by more religious crazys…never mind).
No I don’t have a problem with the “exposure” but then I don’t have kids.
My brother-in-law was relieved he had just sent his kids off to bed though. I suppose he was relieved mostly because he didn’t have to discuss Janet’s nipples with his 6 year old son yet, but I’m sure that day will come.
Peter,
You are being incredibly arrogant about this. I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded, regardless of the political spectrum their views may take. When the stock comeback when there is a negative reaction or just an opposing opinion being discussed is: “Well, then what I said must have a kernel of truth” is asinine. Rush Limbaugh said the same thing when he made his comments about Donovan Mcnabb, citing the indignation of his critics.When talking about “The Truth”, Kyle Baker said we spend too much time talking about race; that it isn’t a large factor in most people’s lives. Do you think he might know a bit better than you?
Your comment about Janet was silly. if she claimed it was about race, well, then, we would have to take her seriously! But she didn’t, but that’s probably because she’s afraid of making this thing even bigger! Again, it’s the “Maude” mentality. We must say and do for Black people what they are unable to say and do for themselves!
I suppose he was relieved mostly because he didn’t have to discuss Janet’s nipples with his 6 year old son yet, but I’m sure that day will come.
Did he have to explain “erectile dysfunction” though?
>
No. He just waits to ask his Aunt (me) those questions when I’m not quick enough to change the channel. (His father’s much better at that one).
I was never offended at seeing an surgically enhanced breast flashed (My parents had no problem taking me to the beach in Italy when I was ten, where there were exposed breasts
“You are being incredibly arrogant about this. I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded, regardless of the political spectrum their views may take. When the stock comeback when there is a negative reaction or just an opposing opinion being discussed is: “Well, then what I said must have a kernel of truth” is asinine. Rush Limbaugh said the same thing when he made his comments about Donovan Mcnabb, citing the indignation of his critics.When talking about “The Truth”, Kyle Baker said we spend too much time talking about race; that it isn’t a large factor in most people’s lives. Do you think he might know a bit better than you?
Your comment about Janet was silly. if she claimed it was about race, well, then, we would have to take her seriously! But she didn’t, but that’s probably because she’s afraid of making this thing even bigger! Again, it’s the “Maude” mentality. We must say and do for Black people what they are unable to say and do for themselves!”
What I find incredibly arrogant is people attacking PAD for a straw man position…after he’s repeatedly said what his position is.
And while I don’t find the race as a major factor explanation to be credible, I don’t find it inherently silly. It’s the automatic rejection of it that I find silly. As someone who did research (the publishable kind) on race, media and communications, I don’t see it as far fetched that race has played a factor in how long this has played out (Again, as I said, it’s ultimately not credible, but that’s not the same thing as being far fetched).
Jerome:
I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded, regardless of the political spectrum their views may take.
To misquote an acquaintance of mine: “Irony, thy name is Internet.”
Your comment about Janet was silly. if she claimed it was about race, well, then, we would have to take her seriously!
You know, I have a hard time figuring out exactly what you think is going on here. PAD asked one question and produced one hypothetical scenario.
Let’s review the original, shall we:
[E]very time you see articles about censorship lately, they all keep referring to Janet Jackson
The Madonna/Pepsi flap.
The way I remember it, Pepsi had arranged a global premiere of the video, on broadcast television round the world (at least the advertising claimed.) Then got the Like a Prayer video and played it.
Middle America revolted over the video, especially over its religious imagery, and that was that.
This was what, the mid-80s? That kind of imagery on prime-time, burning crosses? I think that particular situation had less to do with the race card, but my memory of it is sorta hazy. Heck, the only reason I remember it was because Pepsi run commercials promoting it that had Bushmen coming into a bar in Alice Springs to watch it…
Jeff posted:
“One more time for clarity. The problem with the bøøb flash (and I don’t believe for a second it was accidental), was that it was during PRIME TIME BROADCAST TELEVISION. There are established rules for broadcast standards at different times of the day. Nudity is not OK on any BROADCAST program, without special permission. Mostly it’s PBS stations that get the special permission because of some of their National Geographic programming and some of the British dramas, or on news programming. That’s it.”
Actually, Janet’s breast exposure is NOT “nudity”, even by many network standards. There is a great deal of the female breast which can legitimately be exposed, even in prime time hours on the major broadcast networks. The only part that cannot be shown IN ITS ENTIRETY is the areola and nipple–and that part was mostly covered by the little decoration. (Gene Roddenberry was able to get away with quite a lot on the original “Star Trek” in costuming many of his alien females. If I recall correctly, in one of his memoirs, he’s quoted as being very concerned that some garments had occasional tendencies to reveal certain portions of the nipple/areola area and rather than going back and redoing the costumes, he tried to make sure he had several camera angles filmed to avoid any unintended exposure.)
Further, the FCC’s own guidelines on indecency and obscenity do not actually agree with the outrage that ensued. From the FCC’s own website:
The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. Indecent programming may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
Given the fact that several of the Super Bowl’s advertisements consisted of male potency enhancers and farting horses, the baring of Janet’s breast is NOT remotely “indecent”. If the FCC is going to get all aflutter over Janet’s breast, it needs to go after the NFL for accepting ads which are no more suitable for children. Note that the “indecency” must be “in context”.
As for Den’s assertion that Janet’s wardrobe malfunction was intended, it’s funny but all the pics I’ve seen following the incident don’t look at all as something that had been planned. As a local newspaper entertainment reported noted Janet’s not that good an actress. She was definitely surprised after the incident. Also, noting Den’s comment about Michael Powell’s being black–so what? I heard a comedian who joked that Powell was upset because it was Janet’s breast–Powell wanted to see a white woman’s breast.
As for those who expected Janet to apologize on the Grammy telecast, what are you people thinking? In fact, what right did the Grammy people have in demanding she apologize in order to appear as part of a tribute to Luther Vandross? She’d made apologies for several days following the incident (with more sincerity than Justin’s apologies/explanations–as I recall, one of Justin’s first comments seemed more of the proud frat-boy “dude, did you see what I did” category; only after the “outrage”, did he start to seem a bit contrite about it), and there was really nothing more that she could have said. Janet deserved to be part of that tribute–she’d recorded with Luther (the early 90s song “The Best Things in Life Are Free”)–regardless of anything else, and the Grammy people in charge were doing little more than committing extortion (“apologize on our show or you can’t come”), and for an organization which has been routinely opposed to any censorship efforts IN ANY FORM, this was nothing short of blatant hypocrisy. (Before anyone pulls out the “only the gov’t can censor” line, the Grammy organization has opposed record labels interfering with artistic creativity.)
Also, a comment about Justin’s lyric: If some people would listen to a little bit of the current pop music that’s out there, that “naked by the end of this song” was a lyric from his Top 10 pop hit, “Rock Your Body” which was recorded way back sometime in 2002–the album, “Justified”, was released in November of that year, and the song couldn’t have been recorded after then to be included on the first release. Of course, the song also seems to suggest that Justin has a one guy/multiple girls fantasy–“so grab your girls and you grab a couple more”–but he also admits that “I came to romance with you”. So, all in all, I don’t think that the “indicting” lyric holds much weight when taken in context–unless one just wants to read something more into it. (Somewhat like Amy Grant had to defend herself over the lyrics of “Baby, Baby” to her Christian music fans who were appalled by the sexually suggestive/playful nature of the song. Amy claimed they were inspired by her baby daughter–though how the “no muscle man could sever” lyrics relates to a daughter escapes me. Was Amy lying? I don’t really care–it was still a nice song.)
Actually, regarding the Madonna/Pepsi deal, Madonna had been hired by Pepsi to do a commercial and video for her upcoming single “Like a Prayer”. The *commercial* would air on commercial television (if I recall correctly, it was supposed to air first on NBC, on a Thursday night during or after “The Cosby Show”), then the video would air in its entirety on MTV the following night. The Mary Lambert-directed commercial was a very mild deal involving a group of young girls at a Catholic school and some appropriate product placement, and Pepsi was quite pleased with it. Then the Mary Lambert-directed video aired with its anti-racism message and Black Jesus and burning crosses and Pepsi’s people essentially saw red. They claimed that Madonna had duped them, but Madonna apparently had the idea that the commercial and the video were two separate projects (not entirely unheard of), and still managed to get Pepsi to buy her out of the contract.
If I recall the public outrage, it came mostly from the Christian community but had differing points. Some were upset by the burning crosses, feeling they seemed to connect Christianity with the KKK. Others were actually upset over the notion of a Black Jesus (even though that was hardly a novel idea, even in 1987). There were some who objected to the implication when said Black Jesus laid Madonna down on a church pew (nothing else happened beyond a very chaste kiss, but some found the idea a bit suggestive of something more).
Too many people wanted to put their own spin on the imagery that they neglected the underlying moral against prejudice, especially racism.
I remember the Madonna/Pepsi flap (yes, I’m an old geezer). The outrage wasn’t over the burning crosses – it was the fact that Madonna kissed a black Jesus, and they both seemed to enjoy it!! How shameful!
Incidentally, does anyone remember who won the Super Bowl ™, or what the score was?
That was supposed to include a mock tag after “How shameful!”, indicating the end of sarcasm. I guess the system thought it was supposed to be a real tag…
I find the whole “the erectile dysfunction ads were worse” argument specious as well, all anyone has to tell a kid about erectile dysfunction is that it’s a medical problem that older men get. End of story. You don’t have to go into the gory details. Just tell them the truth: it’s nothing they have to think about. Until they start showing some guy’s flaccid unit in those ads, there’s no comparison.
Kids aren’t little adults, and most of them understand that.
That argument always bothered me, it’s crap, if you got a problem with male members in general(like most feminists seem to), I guess maybe it offends you.
That said, I hate the prudishness that makes the whole breast thing a big deal. And the hypocrisy of the way men on TV can be sexualized and topless, but not women, god no, that would be offensive.
Screw that. I want bøøbìëš and bare ášš on my TV, now.
I thought cable and Satellite TV/Radio were “immune” the the FCC scumbags by virtue of the fact that you can’t “accidentally” see them, you have to pay (or work hard to descramble the captured signals) to see/hear them.
MTV should be completely safe from the FCC, and it’s their advertisers they live in fear of…
Y’know, I never thought about it until I read the point, but I can definitely agree. The fact that there was no nudity involved in this incident still bothers me.
I remember watching the movie “Elvira: Mistress of the Dark” on Fox years ago. Near the end of the movie, Elvira appears in a scene where she only wears tassled nipple covers. Fox aired it. Where’s the outrage?
I personally see the issue being less about Janet being black but more about Janet being black AND Justin being white. That was out-right interracial sexuality. Something America still fears. (Having seen the looks I get when out with my black wife, and mixed child, I want to hear no disagreement about that. It’s dámņ true.) Janet gets the flack instead of Justin because of her age and her skin color. If this was Britney and Usher, Usher would have been ripped to pieces, not Britney, as America still has the blame a minority mentality.
Think a few years back when a woman claimed a black man had stolen her car and her children. Millions of Americans were outraged that anybody could do this, and several racial assaults occured. Less than a week later, we found out she drove her kids in to a lake. Don’t tell me that Americans don’t automatically blame minorities whether the case really points to them or not.
This entire situation is a joke to me. America needs to grow up.
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”.
Ok. Nobody else seems to have addressed this.
But I find it utterly pathetic and disturbing that a FRIGGIN NIPPLE automatically equals SEX with people.
Why the hëll else would you mention “the birds and the bees” if not for automatically assuming that nudity = pørņ = sex?
This entire situation is a joke to me. America needs to grow up.
America needs to grow up about alot of things.
About sex, about race, about tits and ášš, about 7 fun words you’re not allowed to say on air, and other things.
“”Think a few years back when a woman claimed a black man had stolen her car and her children. Millions of Americans were outraged that anybody could do this, and several racial assaults occured.”
Obviously the assaults are inexcusable but why WOULDN’T millions of American–black or white–be outraged that anybody could do this???
“Less than a week later, we found out she drove her kids in to a lake.”
And Americans were outraged that anybody could do this. So your point seems lost.
“Don’t tell me that Americans don’t automatically blame minorities whether the case really points to them or not.”
If by Americans you mean all of us, I will tell you that. You can choose to believe it or not–it will remain true regardless. If you mean SSOME Americans…that seems rather too obvious to say. You can pretty much fill in the sentence “Some Americans_____________________” with anything you want and it will likely have some truth to it.
I’m sorry that some idiots make life difficult for your family. You’re far from alone–I think of my family as just your average one but on reflection I remember that my step-son and sister have significantly different ethnic heritages than my own (my step-son could be classified as a completely different race but that is so goofy it’s hard to take seriously). Don’t let the turkeys make you embittered.
CBG *should* have contacted Peter in advance to notify him of the column change.
But… I otherwise respect their decision to pull the material.
The thing is… whether Peter’s right or not doesn’t factor into it. It’s the choice of topic matter. Honestly… how does debating the rascist elements of the Janet Jackson bøøb incident relate to comic books? Not at all, insofar as I can tell. And linking it to a greater debate about censorship seems tangental at best. If the column didn’t hurt for its absence, then it was surely expendable.
Call me crazy, but when I open CBG, I expect to see material about comic books. I wouldn’t expect to see discussion about issues of race and Janet Jackson’s bøøb in there any more than I would in “Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Magazine” or “Better Homes and Gardens.”
Luigi,
Your post from 1:36 today where you quote me seems to miss a big point about this. You point out all the reasons that the Lil’ Kim thing and Janet don’t compare and state that you can’t use the two as side by side examples in this debate.
That they were so different is just the point and they do compare for this debate. Lil’ Kim, as you said, showed up in her outfit hours before the actual show. MTV did its pre-show and had Kim showing off her bøøb then. Of course, it could be pointed out that only the target audience of the show would be watching the pre-show. They could have had her cover it if they wanted too. But, MTV being cable is not under the FCC’c control. And, as I said, the idea so often with MTV is, “that’s what you get with them”. Janet did what she did on a network, in the “family” hours, on a “family” program with lots of people watching who aren’t in her target demo. My point was showing how different the two events were to show cause for the different reactions. Both singers were black women. If PAD’s point was right; the MTV show would have been the kick off for all of this garbage. It wasn’t skin color. It was time and place and the enviroment created by this political season.
The two events do compare. The two events (and lots of others in the rap world) show very clearly that the reaction wasn’t do to skin color or it would have gone down long ago.
Also to PAD. I like you a lot and respect most of your debating skills. But this line of yours that the proof of your being so close to the truth is in the level of arguement being thrown against it? Yeah, right. That’s right up there with the FOX News line that if you don’t mindlessly support Bush and his war then you must be a supporter of the big bad evil guys in the world and you hate America. I really expected a little better from you.
Ditto by the way with some of the other posts. I think it was a dumb comment but I still think CBG should have run it or talked to Peter first. There was no reason to blindside a vet writer of the CBG like that.
I wouldn’t expect to see discussion about issues of race and Janet Jackson’s bøøb in there any more than I would in “Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Magazine” or “Better Homes and Gardens.”
Hey, the more coverage (or is that uncoverage?) of Janet’s breasts, the better, I say!!
Beats the hëll out of the coverage of the other Jackson bøøb – Michael…
Joe Goforth: “on HBO late-nite: “Karen’s Pool Party” Woooo Hoooo!”
Ok, what percentage of the gross can I look forward to? Residuals?
Den posted: “Like there’s a difference between one idiotic award show and another.”
Though I realize you’re just making light, the salient difference between the two is that one is on broadcast (and therefore, under the FCC’s thumb) and one is on cable (and therefore NOT subject to the FCC’s decisions).
Luigi Novi asked: Do they (or you) wear ones as large and elaborate as the sunburst design Janet was wearing? I tend to think that people who wear nipple rings wear simple rings, and that something as large as was Janet was wearing would not only be uncomfortable under clothing, but cause an unsightly bulge. In addition, wouldn