|
What You've Missed:
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 February
2004 January
Recommended Sites:
Old Blog
The Washington Post
Roger Ebert
The Onion
Dilbert
Unamerican Activities
Dear readers: Thank you very much for your support of Fluorescent Sunshine. Knowing that I have an interested audience keeps me motivated. Please leave your thoughts on the articles by clicking the link at the end of each post. Your comments let me know that my work is not in vain! Thanks, BJK
|
| Super Bold |
| 02.02.04 (10:10 am) |
[image]bkriner_1194970723 .jpg[/image]
If you blinked, you missed it. I didn't, and I didn't. During a Super-Bowl halftime show "duet" between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, the former N'Sync star tore off part of Jackson's body-armor-style outfit, and out popped what appeared to be her right breast.
I couldn't believe my eyes...did I just see...yes, dear reader, it turns out that I did. Wow...you don't see that every year! It seems that there is now a controversy afoot over whether or not the exposure was intentional. There is evidence that it was: MTV (producers of the extravaganza) promised "some shocking moments."
Indeed, at the moment of exposure, millions of innocent American eyes were spared a [i]complete[/i] look at Jackson's breast by a strange, sun-shaped...well, there is no other word for it...nipple cover.
Questions abound: why wear a nipple cover unless you plan to expose your breast? Did she have a nipple cover on the other breast? Was that moon-shaped? Why wear body armor with detachable breast panels unless you plan to detach said panel? Timberlake, in a press statement, described the incident as a "wardrobe malfunction." A what? For me, a wardrobe malfunction is wearing a brown belt with black shoes. I guess when you're a star, anything can happen. Someone must get to the bosom, er, bottom of this!
Did MTV, CBS, Jackson, and Timberlake mean for this incident to take place? Maybe. The FCC, CBS, and MTV immediately released press statements with the usual blather about the regrettable, unintentional nature of the incident. But something tells me, intentional or not, these stakeholders won't be regretting it for long. Now that the token statements are out, they can all get to work figuring out how to make a buck off the notoriety.
We saw most of Janet Jackson's breast. Big deal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating nudity on prime-time network TV, but I wish that the broadcasters would at least be consistent. Many of the commercials that were aired during the game were of the usual, shame-on-you content, featuring oblique sexual and scatological references pitched at the level of the kid in the back of homeroom. CBS saw no problems with a chimpanzee soliciting a young woman for sex, but the network is outraged by the halftime incident. Apparently 2.9 million dollars buys you a license to push the envelope. It's okay to suggest sex as long as you don't show it.
This mixed-message broadcasting is hypocrisy at it's finest. FCC Chairman Michael Powell said, in a statement: "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better." I imagine many of these same viewers who were outraged at seeing Janet's breast were laughing heartily at the chimpanzee commercial. I guess bestiality is cuter than the breast of a beautiful woman.
I'm no prude; sex and below the belt humor can often be amusing. But shame on the FCC and network executives who issue obligatory, pious statements of outrage while plying lowest-common-demoninator advertisements to the highest bidder. If it's a spectacle the public wants, a spectacle is what we will get, but we can't have it both ways. The Super Bowl should either be a clean, family-oriented event, or a late-night PG-13 shocktastic extravaganza. In the meantime, the networks will be looking for a fig leaf big enough to cover Janet's breast and their own asses at the same time.
|
|
|
| |
posted by: newbie
post date: 02.02.04 (2:06 pm)
Well.....the Jackson Family motto says it all: "if you can't bring the kids to the nudity, then bring the nudity to the kids".
Perhaps this is Justin's way at getting back at Spears for the Madonna Kiss.
The commercials, no matter how poor in taste, most likely conform to FCC regulations. The nudity doesn't.
I would say that give the nipple cover, detachable clothing, and the rehearsals, someone, particular MTV, had to know about it.
In the end, someone is getting fined.
posted by: newbie
post date: 02.03.04 (6:52 am)
The happiest man yesterday was Former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean. It took Janet's breast to take the attention away from the I Have a Scream speech. Wow.
posted by: bkriner
post date: 02.03.04 (9:54 am)
Reply to: Kleenex
I agree that this was planned, but why only one breast? I mean, the sight of two breasts is erotic, or whatever, but the sight of one just hanging out of a shirt is strange. Next time, strip right or leave your shirt on!
posted by: bkriner
post date: 02.03.04 (9:54 am)
Reply to: kge
LOL...I Have a Scream. Dean is a strange bird...I think that incident is going to bury him for good...
|
|