BuzzMachine

My problem with the half-time show was one of choice. When I’m looking for shows to watch, I have guides as to what those shows are going to contain. If I’m watching with my daughter, I’ll skip shows that I would ordinarily watch because I see from the summaries that they contain content that I do not want my daughter to see. I have a choice as a parent. The super bowl halftime show did not give me that choice. I wasn’t going to watch it (I had started flipping channels), but my daughter did. So I let her watch it. I figured it was just going to be some pop stars singing. So her and her friend got to see a woman being treated as an object.
Even without the bare breast, it was TV-14. I just want to know that before hand so I can make an informed decision and be a good parent.

JP: For the sake of the punchline, I’d take liberties with the translation and, instead, wonder whether Powell is going after the … drumroll, please … asses of evil.

Yeah lets make this into a discussion of what’s its not. Broadcast TV at the hours before 9 or 10 has some higher standards to live up to than cable (exactly because it is an “intrusive” form of media). Like the preivous poster said, it’s about choice. I bet everyone who goes on and on on the “Americans are moral prudes” tangent didn’t watch the half-time show with their pre-teen children. Most shows put a parental discretion warning even before (gasp) more gruesome or provactive programming (even FOX does before shows like 24). So maybe Mikey at the FCC is a big prude, but he wouldn’t be doing his job and the FCC standards for broadcast tv wouldn’t mean anything if he didn’t look into the event. If I was watching a show on S&M then I might be expecting a bare breast, but wasn’t expecting it watching a SPORTING EVENT. Not into taking away anybody’s right to view what they want, just don’t put me in that situation with my kids while watching a football game. And you know what the whole “Europeans think we’re dumb” meme is a big non-starter. Look we bathe, wear deodorant, and have generally been better at just about everything for the past century, so what they do really doesn’t concern me.

@Jeff: love it!

Jeff is right. The whole flap is just absurd, and I’m not even sure I buy the whole “family viewing” defense of this behaviour (meaning the behaviour of the people reacting to the boob, not the people who exposed it). With due respect to the parents involved I think this is a sign that it’s time to start asking:
A) to what extent society at large should be expected to hide the human body in order to avoid offending the “choice” of this or that parent.
B) whether it’s time for some parents to start coming to grips with changing attitudes toward the body.
C) whether it’s time to start rethinking the role and regulations of the FCC.
The “shelter your children from any glimpse of a breast” standard is on the same continuum as the long-dead hysteria that used to surround glimpses of ankle, and I’d guess it’s not going to be viable much longer. That’s not a bad thing at all, and it’s a vast (and unbelievably insulting) oversimplification to pretend that a woman who dares show skin is automatically being “treated as an object.”

If a boob is no big deal, they could have done the entire show buck naked.
Instead, they saved it for a “shocking moment” at the end. The whole point was to shock.
Yes, boobs are not a big deal. So why hype it up? The artistic and entertainment value in ripping off that cup was as much as would have been in ripping off a sock; i.e., none.
So why not just abide by the rules?

My nephew’s church group had gathered at my sister-in-law’s house to watch the Super Bowl. There was a presumption that the event was a football game, not an exercise in celeb nudity. I haven’t dared to ask what the fallout has been.
Personally, I could care less. But parents have a right to know up front that their kids are going to get an eyeful. Think of it not as a freedom of speech issue, Mr. Jarvis, but as decpetive advertising depriving parents of exercising their freedom of choice regarding what they let their kids see.

The implied violence of ripping a woman’s clothing off bothers me.
Hmmm. The thing is, there was a time when I would have been a lot more sympathetic to this; maybe I’m growing jaded or callous or both. But I can’t help wondering, if “implied violence” and not nudity is the thing… doesn’t the average soap opera plot involve plenty of “implied violence” against women? If we don’t assume that people are going to watch those shows and go out to commit real violence against women, is there any particular reason to assume it of a Superbowl half-time show?
I suppose you could object to this that sporting culture anywhere has a pretty long history of ugly attitudes toward and treatment of women, which of course is true. But since this long predates this past Superbowl… how major an aggravating factor is a glimpse of Janet likely to be? And would assiduously cleansing the airwaves of breast address that problem in any way?
So why not just abide by the rules?
I dunno. Just hypothetically: what if the rules are ridiculous, archaic and prudish and no longer reflect the balance of the culture they’re supposed to be serving? Would that be a good reason not to obey them?
I should point out that those who think this was a misguided PR stunt were probably right. I have no illusions about Janet or Justin being cultural crusaders themselves. But they themselves aren’t the issue — it’s the nannying of public discourse and airwaves that’s the issue.

Jeff: Well said! (And good punchline.)

Look, I cannot stand the idea of the nanny state.
But, people, c’mon. Parents have a right to have some idea of what their kids are going to see when they are parked in front of the TV set. The Super Bowl, like it or not, is a national event, and lots of children watch it. I’m sure all those parents with somewhat conservative moral views are having a real fun time with their children right now. This is really a bait and switch here, and it’s fair to say parents were betrayed by CBS.
If Miss Janet decided, as a publicity stunt, to give us a view, she, and those who knew about the stunt should pay for it. While that viewpoint may not appeal to all you Libertarians out there, it should force those who figure a little nudity will help their musical career to confine their escapades in overexposure to Playboy and their personal internet sites. That way, when parents sit their kids in front of a Superbowl, all they’ll have to worry about are the Victoria’s Secret ads…

Someone else who’s obviously never even been to Europe.
Wrong…been there a lot actually (more than half a dozen times) and I live in a popular tourist state and have many interactions with Europeans. You’re obviously someone who hasn’t shared many airport limos with French people.

Again, it becomes a question of: how much should society be prepared to accommodate itself to conservative parents? Though I’m not completely unsympathetic, I don’t think it can be argued that it’s the duty of pop culture to please the prudish minority
Yeah F’em and their kids too!

We should all go to his place and tell him that this means he’s not a real liberal. Of course we can’t, since he doesn’t provide a URL or an e-mail.
Heh. Good to see you’re maturing, Eric. Not to worry, soon as my website is set up you’ll be the first to know. Promise.

Yeah F’em and their kids too!
Oh, especially their kids, who we all know will surely mutate into grotesque sexual predators on account of a single glimpse of The Mighty Breast of Janet Jackson.

Zymurgist your argument makes no sense at all, but, man, was it funny!

Benny, I’ve made no arguments. I’ve anly asked a question. Now answer it or move along smartly.

Interesting how Jesus Juice and Zymurgist are the only ones using incredibly vulgar language here – despite the fact that they’re the ones most loudly decrying Janet Jackson’s performance.
Interesting study in hypocrisy. Or repression. Or maybe they’re just trolling.

Actually, Jesus Juice you’re the only one who said I was offended by your language. You see, you’re assuming I’m thinking like you. You’ve just fallen into a trap of your own making.
All I pointed out was the irony of you complaining about breasts on telly whilst simultaneously using language that most folks would find more offensive. Left my personal opinion out all together.
Oops! Big Freudian slip on your part!
Zymurgist, I’m not getting into a childish string of definitions of what’s hardcore versus simple nudity with you. My arguments all there. It’s clear. Move on. Smartly.