Janet Jackson's Superbowl - Page 7

MrFun · February 3, 2004, 11:49

You're right centrifuge -- we're beating this past incident to death, already.

DanS · February 3, 2004, 12:36

Quote:

What's the bad thing about a booby appearing on TV for a few seconds, again? I'm confused. What are people afraid of?

There's a time and place for everything. This was neither the time nor the place.

The Super Bowl is watched by a lot of families. Insult to injury was that it was during family hour on a Sunday. Also, there was a lot of bumping and grinding going on during the number, leaving aside the nipple ring. Lastly, this is broadcast TV, not cable TV, where you actively choose to buy programming.

-Jrabbit · February 3, 2004, 12:40

From today's VH1.com Music News newsletter...

Quote:

MTV released this statement Monday night:

"MTV was as surprised and shocked as anyone last night. Janet Jackson acknowledged that we had no prior knowledge of her plans. We will continue to investigate the circumstances.

Our goal with the Super Bowl Halftime show was to produce an entertaining stage experience with a positive message about empowerment and voting. We are disappointed that this message has been overshadowed by the unfortunate incident.

MTV apologizes again to anyone who was offended."

Without the appearance of Janet's breast, that's certainly the message I would have gotten!

Yeah!

MrFun · February 3, 2004, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS

There's a time and place for everything. This was neither the time nor the place.

The Super Bowl is watched by a lot of families. Insult to injury was that it was during family hour on a Sunday. Also, there was a lot of bumping and grinding going on during the number, leaving aside the nipple ring. Lastly, this is broadcast TV, not cable TV, where you actively choose to buy programming.

There is a non-traditional student who sometimes works the same hours that I work, and she and I talked about this.

She was not upset that her nine year old son, and 13 year old son saw this. And don't try to explain this away with the simplistic statement "she must be a bad mother" -- given that you do not even know her, in the first place.

DanS · February 3, 2004, 12:51

I don't know her, so I can't say that she's not a bad mother either.

(i.e., keep your strawmen to yourself)

I know a lot of people who wouldn't want their children watching this kind of stuff. And given the time and place, they had reasonable expectation that they wouldn't be watching this kind of stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the flesh personally. But I think we should make parents of this persuasion feel less uncomfortable raising their children in this society.

Docfeelgood · February 3, 2004, 13:01

What is all the hoopla about a plastic teet?

Jac de Molay · February 3, 2004, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS

There's a time and place for everything. This was neither the time nor the place.

The Super Bowl is watched by a lot of families. Insult to injury was that it was during family hour on a Sunday. Also, there was a lot of bumping and grinding going on during the number, leaving aside the nipple ring. Lastly, this is broadcast TV, not cable TV, where you actively choose to buy programming.

I didn't see the incident, but I completely agree with you.

It's bad enough that TV is being constantly dumbed-down and sleazed-down, and the SuperBowl should be one of those things that families can watch together for a change. Hopefully, people will stop watching TV altogether because of this debacle.

centrifuge · February 3, 2004, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Jac de Molay

Hopefully, people will stop watching TV altogether because of this debacle.

Yeah, wishful thinking, that would require people to get off of their fat rumps and find a hobby... too much work.

...besides they would probably just start wasting their time by roaming through internet forums

Koyaanisqatsi · February 3, 2004, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Lastly, this is broadcast TV, not cable TV, where you actively choose to buy programming.

Why is this significant? Do you not actively choose to a) have a television and b) turn it to a given channel? How is broadcast any more of a forced experience than cable?

MrFun · February 3, 2004, 14:59

To what extent should there be social pressure based on morality in the United States, before we become like what the Taliban was??

alva · February 3, 2004, 15:14

See next post

centrifuge · February 3, 2004, 15:15

Jon Miller · February 3, 2004, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by dv8ed

Why is this significant? Do you not actively choose to a) have a television and b) turn it to a given channel? How is broadcast any more of a forced experience than cable?

because broadcast TV is not suppose to have nudity

JOn Miller

alva · February 3, 2004, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I must say that I simply cannot find Janet Jackson attractive. Her face reminds me eerily of her brother ( imagine that), and that just.... eek.

DinoDoc · February 3, 2004, 15:18

She's not that attractive, people! Now if it had been someone like Beyonce Knowles, I could understand the reaction.

You're a horrible person alva! :vomit:

Koyaanisqatsi · February 3, 2004, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
because broadcast TV is not suppose to have nudity

I was questioning the logic, not the law.

Az · February 3, 2004, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by alva

*chokes on sandwich*

btw, you don't have to censor the nipple (ring). Docfeelgood has it as it's avatar for example.

DanS · February 3, 2004, 15:55

Quote:

Why is this significant? Do you not actively choose to a) have a television and b) turn it to a given channel? How is broadcast any more of a forced experience than cable?

Just an added layer of choice for a parent who is trying to regulate the amount and type of adult content that their children see, notwithstanding some saucy PBS shows. This extends into cable as well. You have to actively choose and pay more for premium channels, giving an added layer of protection for parents. So it seems OK to show nudity on premium channels, while it isn't OK to show it on basic, MTV videos and National Geographic notwithstanding. Even on premium channels, the shows with a lot of the harder core stuff are shown late at night, as an added measure to shield kids from the material.

Inverse Icarus · February 3, 2004, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh my god . . . I want that woman.

que horribly insensitive speer comment in 5... 4... 3...

The Mad Viking · February 3, 2004, 16:29

I think it is instructive that bloody gunshot stabbing slashing murder is ok on tv, but *gasp* a woman's BREAST!

The moral foundation the country is built upon

is sure to collapse.

What an unmitigated pile of sh!t.

That the FCC is worried upon the use of airwaves for this, but not about fear factor or paradise hotel is patently absurd.

The Mad Monk · February 3, 2004, 16:43

Mad Viking, if there was a graphically violent halftime special, which went on without any prior warning, I suspect the reaction would be similar.

Guynemer · February 3, 2004, 16:51

MM--but there was a graphically violent prehalftime special, and a graphically violent posthalftime special. It's called the Super Bowl.

I'm with the Viking. I'm more concerned about my future children (and patients) seeing people kill each other on television as opposed to seeing a breast, or (heaven forfend!) two people making love.

Koyaanisqatsi · February 3, 2004, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Just an added layer of choice for a parent who is trying to regulate the amount and type of adult content that their children see, notwithstanding some saucy PBS shows. This extends into cable as well. You have to actively choose and pay more for premium channels, giving an added layer of protection for parents. So it seems OK to show nudity on premium channels, while it isn't OK to show it on basic, MTV videos and National Geographic notwithstanding. Even on premium channels, the shows with a lot of the harder core stuff are shown late at night, as an added measure to shield kids from the material.

Ah, working under the 'I can't trust my kid' theory.

I wasn't really arguing that there shouldn't be channels without objectionable (insert objectionable definition as necessary) material on them, I was more objecting to the idea that the method of delineation is that some are free and some are not.

The Mad Monk · February 3, 2004, 16:59

I didn't see any guts splattered on the field, did you?

I'm talking about what a resonable persn has a right to expect on public airwaves. I have no problem with nudity myself, but broadcast television has the standards it does for a reason.

In other words, violence is fine when you know ahead of time that the program is supposed to be violent, nudity and sex is fine when you know ahead of time that the program is supposed to have nudity and sex. As long as reasonable people know ahead of time what to expect, so they can make judgements according to their own values what to watch, all is fair.

This blindsided a lot of people that didn't expect it, and wouldn't have watched it had they known.

Guynemer · February 3, 2004, 17:09

I'm also kinda shocked that people didn't expect this--

an MTV produced halftime starring noted harlot and attention-whore, Janet Jackson?

My heavens, what an unexpected turn of events!

CharlesBHoff · February 3, 2004, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO
The Bible Belt is up in arms! The local news is telling how to complain to CBS.

Anybody got apic to post?

Big deal do these Christian fundie have better thing to worry about. Almost all of Fox Tv show are pormgraphic anyway and deal with sexual topic. This is tame compare to MTV musical video.

CharlesBHoff · February 3, 2004, 17:53

My brother watch these Fox show but I see part of then when I go into the kitch to make something to eat as I have diet(low blood sugar can be life threaten).

-Jrabbit · February 3, 2004, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by dv8ed

Ah, working under the 'I can't trust my kid' theory.

I wasn't really arguing that there shouldn't be channels without objectionable (insert objectionable definition as necessary) material on them, I was more objecting to the idea that the method of delineation is that some are free and some are not.

Hey, don't jump on DanS. Criticize the gov't. This is a matter of law. The way it goes is this --

NETWORKS/FREE TV
Broadcast TV uses radio transmission that literally covers all of the geographic area accessible from their tower location. These broadcasts utilize the public airwaves and are thus, as ruled by the FCC, US govt (Communications Act of 1934 and successors), and the courts, required to broadcast material that meets community standards (of decency etc -- a real hornet's nest yeah, but defining that is for a fresh thread).

The fact that the networks are simulcast locally by their hundreds of affiliates means that, by definition, they are obliged to meet the broadest (morally strictest) test of community standards. This makes a live event like the Super Bowl especially problematic. With standard network fare, everything is on tape prescreened, and local affiliates have the opportunity (actually, the responsibility) to opt out of a given program if they feel it would be objectionable to their local community standards.

If objectionable material is broadcast, the LOCAL station can be fined. All complaints from citizens are kept in FCC files and reviewed at the time of each station's license renewal (every 5 years, iirc???) by a formal process. [Note to you troublemakers out there -- If you lodge a complaint with the FCC, they are obliged to investigate the broadcaster in question. Your tax dollars at work!!]

Thus, the NETWORK puts each local affiliate at risk by airing potentially objectionable material. Fines can be per incident/per outlet. (The fines have, I believe, been increased substantially just recently. Howard Stern is the current record-holder, being fined about $1.4 MM iirc for a series of off-color incidents.)

CABLE/PAY TV
The difference is a simple one. Cable stations don't use the "public airwaves." (BTW, by that, the FCC literally means that the broadcast spectrum is collectively "owned" by the public -- as if!!)

Cable stations are products, commodities -- literally purchased and invited into our homes. We order the package that most suits our "standards", customize it with lockouts of objectionable channels, one-off purchase of desired pay-per-view, etc., as we see fit.

Thus, cable TV cannot be compelled to meet community standards, because it is going beyond. In fact, cable meets individual standards. As a product, it succeeds or fails based on marketplace performance. This includes content, quality, price, etc. Those who object to cable's looser content standards won't buy it and thus won't be offended. Just like choosing whether to rent porno flicks -- you invite them into your home and pay for what you want.

CONCLUSION
Is it a goofy system with seemingly random lines of demarcation? Well, only seemingly. The progression from early radio, to early TV, to the network concept, to cable, to pay-per-view, etc, is one of evolution. The legal definitions of each seccessive new form of mass electronic entertainment medium being dependent on an interpretation based on media realities of the past.

Sorry this was so long-winded, but I've taken enough communications law to know that the basis for legal outrage is actually pretty solid and well-defined, no matter how seemingly illogical when compared to other media developed 50 years afterward.

Class dismissed.
[/

]

Gibsie · February 3, 2004, 18:40

You know I'm not really surprised at all the shock. After all, America was tuning in to see a bunch of men beating each other off and grabbing at some misshapen balls, not anything sexual!

DanS · February 3, 2004, 18:41

jrabbit: Of course, that's true, but it didn't really fit into our argument. dv8ed was skeptical that there is an actual difference, even though he knows the laws. I was pointing out where the difference came in.

Quote:

Ah, working under the 'I can't trust my kid' theory.

No. Rather, parents may not want to knowingly put them into a situation where they will be tempted to watch material that they can't handle very well. This is more of "an occasion of sin" theory.