Wardrobe Malfunction

[Peachy]

I don't know why the American media is so obsessed by what happened during the Half Time show at Super Bowl XXXVIII. If they didn't mention it, it would not have gotten ridiculously out of hand. I never watched the game and the people at work I talked to who did watch it didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Anyway, this article from the Toronto Star sums up my feelings about the whole affair:

Land of the Pilgrim, home of the prudePETER HOWELLYou know this Janet Jackson breast-beating has gotten completely out of control when even Spike Lee expresses outrage."What's gonna be next?" he told students at Ohio's Kent State university this week, joining the shocked puritans reacting to Jackson's Super Bowl strip. "It's getting crazy, and it's all down to money. Money and fame. Somehow the whole value system has been upended."This from a filmmaker whose first movie was the sexually unfettered and appropriately titled She's Gotta Have It. The same man whose later film Do The Right Thing contained scenes of street violence that were so incendiary, there were genuine fears they could spark race riots. The same Spike Lee who, in his more recent effort Bamboozled, used shocking racial imagery to rail against stereotyping, stupidity and censorship.Now he's sounding like somebody's maiden aunt, because a pop tart exposed a tiny bit of skin. Did somebody tear the definition of "hypocrite" out of Lee's dictionary?But everyone seems to have lost it over this "wardrobe malfunction." The only really shocking thing about the incident is the hysterical over-reaction.There have been hilarious responses on all fronts. Michael Powell, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, called Jackson's flashing "a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's parents and citizens deserve better."A chastened Ms. Jackson, reversing her earlier claim that the nudity was accidental, has now taken to beating her breast: "I am really sorry if I offended anyone. That was truly not my intention ... the whole thing went wrong in the end."There is also serious talk of censoring Sunday's Grammy Awards show and the Feb. 29 Oscars telecast, to prevent further outbreaks of public nakedness and other antisocial acts. God forbid that rockers and actors should attempt anything dramatic or shocking.It is all further evidence, if any were needed, that America is the most sexually repressed and morally confused of all Western nations. For all of its power, wealth and technological know-how, the U.S. hasn't advanced all that much from the chastity-belted values of its founding Pilgrims.In countries less prone to prudery, the Janet Jackson affair has been the source of much mystery and merriment.Can people really get this worked up over a single bare mammary? A headline in Le Monde this week summed up the French reaction: "America Thrown Into A Panic By The Right Breast Of Janet Jackson."Good thing it wasn't her left breast, or Jackson might have faced accusations of being a communist sympathizer.But all joking aside, there may actually be some good that comes out of this idiocy. The boob brouhaha has done more to highlight the inconsistency of American censorship, which deems that all things to do with sex are sinful and bad. Yet at the same time, almost anything to do with violence is perfectly all right.You need only look at the misuse of movie ratings to prove it. The Motion Picture Association of America has five rating categories for general releases, ranging from "G" for General Audiences to "NC-17" for 18 and over. But in practical terms, there's really only one rating: "PG-13," which means "parents strongly cautioned."Which really means nothing at all, since there's nothing to stop younger kids from going to see a PG-13 movie. And PG-13 is the rating most Hollywood films are cut to, since most movies are aimed at the lucrative demographic of males aged 15 to 25. The rating is the middle ground between the kid stuff of "G" and "PG" and the adult material of "R" and "NC-17."NC-17 was created in 1990, to recognize that certain films can have adult content without being entirely lewd. It replaced the old "X" rating, which now is applied only to porno. But NC-17 is practically extinct, since many movie chains won't exhibit NC-17 films, and many newspapers won't carry ads for them. It's considered an act of extreme bravery and artistic integrity that Fox is next week issuing Bernardo Bertolucci's sexy new film The Dreamers under the NC-17 banner.To get a PG-13 stamp of approval, the suggestion of sex and nudity is okay, à la American Pie, but actually seeing sensual frolicking isn't. A little bit of profanity is tolerated, but a lot of swearing means a push into a stricter ratings category.Acts of violence are a whole other story. The MPAA is much more tolerant toward scenes of bloodshed, battering and bombings, especially if a gun is involved. You can get a PG-13 rating for a movie that kills scores of people, as long as your violent characters don't swear or have sex in the midst of the carnage.I saw a trailer the other night for Walking Tall, the remake of the 1973 "hixploitation" flick about a hillbilly sheriff who dispatches evildoers with guns and a nasty two-by-four. The remake stars hot heavy The Rock, and judging by the trailer, many asses get kicked and heads get thumped. It is sure to get a PG-13 rating (although the original was Restricted) and American moms and dads will be able to rest easy knowing that young Johnny won't see any boffing amidst the butchery.No lesser an authority than Smilin' Jack Nicholson has commented on this ridiculous state of affairs."If you suck on a tit, the movie gets an X rating," he once told an interviewer."If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG."The situation might be amusing, were it not for the fact that Hollywood films are shipped around the world pre-cut to PG-13 standards. Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, for example, was edited to mask scenes of debauchery and group sex. It's highly likely that the scenes would have remained intact in Canada, where movie ratings are more sensibly applied, and sex isn't something that makes the censors sweat. But Warner Bros. didn't want to spend the money to let Canadian exhibitors have their own prints of Eyes Wide Shut, so the bowdlerized American one ruled here, too.If the flap over Jackson's stray breast serves to point up America's ridiculous censorship rules, this tempest in a B-Cup may turn out to be worth all the uproar. We can only hope.

[Rons]

Peachy,You finally know are well hidden secret - we are really a God fearing people who have a sense of morality and family values. But please.........don't tell anyone.PS Nicholson, Jackson and Lee are paid by the government to give the world the illusion of unmorality needed so we can sell our pagan ritualistic films to unsuspecting countries.

[Cluttermagnet]

Hi, Peachy-An amusing state of affairs. I still say that Attorney General Ashcroft set the overall tone for 2000-2004 when he prudishly had "Lady Justice" walled off with a big drape, almost immediately upon taking over the US Department of Justice. This piece of bare- breasted statuary had survived in place for quite some time without offending anyone (so far as we know). Suddenly she was apparently x-rated and unfit for the lobby of such a godly federal bureaucracy. Sheesh! OTOH there are two sides to this story. Western societies have gone a little whacko when it comes to media portrayals of sex and violence. Is it any wonder the middle east folks think of us as the 'great satan'? The output of our 'entertainment' industry truly sickens me, and I find it an embarrassment, and believe me, I'm no prude or innocent. The whole durn thing is all outa whack. The porn merchants and the puritanical prudes are both completely whacko in this area. Oh, how I long for a little normalcy. One satisfying sign of that would be the well- attended ceremony when a new Attorney General invites all the media and yanks down that blasted curtain in the lobby of DOJ. Bah Humbug!I love the Jack Nicholson quote- it is a classic. I can just see his maniacal grin as he says that. Sad but absolutely true. Janet Jackson's little half- time stunt? I didn't see it 'live', BTW, but my basic reaction to seeing it later is "much ado about nothing".

[Grasshopper]

I could honestly give a flying rats *you-know-what* about the whole incident. In fact, I only watch part of the game and then at halftime, I started flipping channels. I think I missed the *show* by a few seconds, but as for me, I could care less.But...I have a 4 year old daughter (and an 8 month old daughter too). The lesson I take from all this is that I, as a parent, have the ultimate responsibility to see to it that my daughter's mind is not filled with this filth, and that she learns the educated truth about sex, violence, hate, etc. when she is more mature to handle it. That is my responsibility. The media is just making it harder for me to be a good parent by making a big fuss over it so that the dirt-hungry public wants more and it becomes sensationalized. And being a good, responsible parent is the most important job you can ever take on.tbird

[Peachy]

tbird,well said. Fortunately, my 8 year-old daughter has no clue who Britney Spears is, mainly because we don't have cable television we have a choice of 3 channels via aerial. One of them, thankfully is TVOntario, a provincially-funded public broadcaster in the same mode as PBS, but with a more critical, non-biased (hard to do and then some) current affairs shows. Nothing like the McLaughlin Group.

[Guest LilBambi]

I agree tbird. As a parent of 3 grown children, who now have children of their own, I am very concerned about this.To think Janet Jackson would do such a thing during the half time show, indicates her level of respect for the entire watching public. There was no reason, that anyone -- in the course of a public halftime show -- was to rip off the clothing or portion of clothing off Janet Jackson in the first place. It gives the impression (particularly to children) that it is OK and exciting to use violence against women by ripping off their clothing (especially in public).IMHO, the whole thing should never have happened.She should be penalized for what she did ... however, I find it hard to believe that she did this ALL on her own without someone knowing it was going down.

[Cluttermagnet]

Peachy,Your daughter is fortunate because her father cares enough to insist on setting up a nurturing environment that is not going to warp her little mind like 800+ channel cable does. Same for you, Tbird. Your daughters will benefit from having a dad who cares enough to spend some quality time with them and to set limits on what is age appropriate. Children are amazingly resilient, and when they encounter new, 'bad' things, they ask questions. The explanations needen't be all that complicated. At their age, all they need to hear from dad and mom is that those negative things they stumbled across, perhaps on the tube at a friend's house, are not acceptable. This value, calmly transmitted, is usually all it takes to make lifelong impressions. Upon hearing of disturbing imagery on the tube, one points out that "we don't like things like that in this family, and we don't watch such things, and that sometimes other people do bad things because they are sick and hurting and in need of help- that maybe the people in the movie who do bad things were not fortunate to have had a dad and mom who loved them like we love you". I think it is really that simple, so long as actual parental behavior fits values taught, because kids are way smarter than we think, and they internalize the 'what is' of their parent's realities, not so much what the parents say. It's just a matter of being there during the formative years 0-5 and catching all these little things in real time. Not the sort of job where you can just 'phone it in'.

[Cluttermagnet]

I agree tbird. As a parent of 3 grown children, who now have children of their own, I am very concerned about this.To think Janet Jackson would do such a thing during the half time show, indicates her level of respect for the entire watching public. There was no reason, that anyone -- in the course of a public halftime show -- was to rip off the clothing or portion of clothing off Janet Jackson in the first place. It gives the impression (particularly to children) that it is OK and exciting to use violence against women by ripping off their clothing (especially in public).IMHO, the whole thing should never have happened.She should be penalized for what she did ... however, I find it hard to believe that she did this ALL on her own without someone knowing it was going down. 

All good points, LilBambi-One gets the impression that the Jackson family was one of many that fits the label 'dysfunctional'. I will not be any more specific than that, but I think you will know where I am going with this. Like a lot of life, we sometimes find good and bad all mixed up in the same person or family. There is probably some dark secret that is keeping every single member of that family from breaking through and becoming whole and healthy emotionally. Human sexuality is something that can be experienced in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I think that family has 'some issues'. There were immediate sanctions against Janet Jackson as CBS scrambled to appear 'family values centered' (yeah, right). She needs no further punishment. There has already been enough, In a sense, her life is in some ways a punishment. She mainly needs our sympathetic understanding (no, I'm not saying society needs to support or tolerate such antics as hers- it's just that we should hopefully be well beyond witch burning by now!)The media are in total collusion on this, whether or not CBS is implicated in this particular incident or not. The media are totally complicit in this. Everyone- performers and distributors- have gotten caught up in this unhealthy relationship to human sexuality. It is highly addictive, and they don't know how to stop. It sells. They don't want to stop. They don't intend to stop. They can't afford to stop, unless forced to.The current counter- trend in our society is the puerile, over the top, shame- based puritanism railed against in the article. The type I rail against, such as the DOJ example mentioned above, which is just as dysfunctional in its own way as the worst of the pornographers. They are flip sides of the same coin, and both are illness. Mankind's great artists have done stunningly good renditions and interpretations of the beauty of the human body. Nude paintings and statuary have been a part of the human scene at all times, and are not considered 'unhealthy'. Rather, they are value neutral, and what values they acquire are nothing more or less than what we project on them, both as individuals and as a society. Some societies overseas are way too repressed. Our own is way too little repressed (on average). Both are out of balance. Janet Jackson does not need to be persecuted any further. I'm not particularly a 'fan' of hers, but neither do I hate the vast body of her work. What I am a big fan of is justice! . Let's not deny it to her or anyone else.

[Stonegiant]

Mmmm. Justice. Will we ever achieve true justice? All we have right now are sets of laws that were originally designed to simulate justice. What these have become (to a fairly small extent, I concede) is a mockery of their original intent. Here is a silly example of just that. In case you misread it, that word was spelled with a b and not an m. <wrenches himself back to the topic>Is it justice that Ms. Jackson is getting all this publicity prior to releasing a new album soon (I don't keep up with her, so I don't know precisely when)? One of the few times I've ever disagreed with you, Cluttermagnet. I do believe that she is precisely where she wants to be at this moment. As the quote goes, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Sure, she took a gamble at being fined in some way for this. Had she not done this at the Super Bowl and just did a 'normal' perfomance at the Grammys, not many people would have even remembered she was ever there. Now, not only do they remember what they did at the SB (MUCH more widely watched than the Grammys will ever be), but now they will remember that she did NOT perfom at the Grammys as well. I understand what you mean when you say that Ms. Jackson has been punished enough just by being in the family she is a part of. That, to me, sounds like a cop out. If I were raised in a family like that, I wouldn't truly know that it was a 'punishment'. It would be 'normal' for me. You can only be raised once. You only get one chance at being 'normal'. Should she be doing what she is doing in front of live television cameras? Probably not. Does it truly bother her? Again, probably not. She should be truly punished for breaking the rules. Not some silly slap on the wrist monetary punishment. For someone with lots of money, a monetary punishment is a fairly silly concept. Do I know a better one? No. Nobody's perfect... <braces himself to have his retort disected in CM's crushing grip of reason>

[nlinecomputers]

Stonegiant,Well now I'm confused. You say that fineing an insurance company billions of dollars is excessive but then claim that someone with lots of money will not be affected by a monetary loss?Just what DO you want to have be done to both of them?

[Peachy]

To me, the issue is not Janet Jackson herself that is the problem, but the whole brouhaha. The very notion that anything sexual scares the Moral Majority, but not war and violence itself is the concern here. Let's be morally clear here: war is violence and if nobody has a problem with that then we are in deep moral crisis. The whole sensationalisation of sex makes it harder to be a parent. I don't want to shield my children from sexuality, rather I want them to learn to appreciate the wonders of a healthy sexuality as they mature. I want them to know and understand that homosexuality, transgenderism, and polyamoury exist, that human beings can naturally exhibit a range and variety of sexual orientations and there's nothing bad about that. But you can't do that when people freak out about it in public.

[Cluttermagnet]

<braces himself to have his retort disected in CM's crushing grip of reason>

Hi, Stonegiant-Well, my impeccable logic and 75 cents still won't buy you a cup of coffee on today's market. We are actually closer together in our thinking than you might realize, in many ways. I will read your url reference later tonight. Got to go out again and work a while longer. You have actually raised several issues, I think. The part I'm covering is the futility of punitive sanctions against Ms. Jackson or other showbiz types. They have a pretty good money machine going, and they know how to push the envelope and exploit it. I think that getting banned from the Emmys or whatever big event is coming up is probably the worst sanction that is going to be used against her. She has far too many fans to be hurt by this. Those who hated it are no doubt a minority.You are quite right about "no bad publicity", that is definitely the case. This will indeed help her career more than hurt it. I kind of wince at the displays of shocked, self- righteous outrage, however, CBS being no exception in that regard ("I'm shocked, I tell ya- shocked! To see such terrible things on our pristine network".) Yeah right. Give me a break! How can anyone allow themselves to watch the networks and the cable channels and all the grotesque comic opera violence- 'professional' sports- football and hocky, also situations in which women are disrespected and degraded- and then feign being offended when they get handed a little porn unexpected? Oh, you actually like football and hockey? OK, then how about blood sports like boxing- is that sickening enough to win your condemnation? Illegal cock fights? Kick boxing death matches, real or imaginary? I have seen a few movies that had that content. I know you have a threshold of tolerance, the only question is where you want to draw your line. We can't have it both ways. Which way do we want it?The whole entertainment industry is a semi- stealthy porn machine, in effect. Blood and gore, sex and violence- almost everybody who is watching the media mindrot is getting fed a steady diet of it. Only a small minority like Peachy will take matters under control and minimize choices in order to greatly reduce offensiveness (a very good choice, BTW- I applaud it. I am similar in my own viewing.) There are two very important controls on a television, the channel setting being one, but if that adjustment does not satisfy, the other applicable one is the OFF switch. I use that one liberally in my home. The TV is maddeningly distracting and I quickly tire of its incessant yammering. If I were fabulously wealthy, I'd probably have an entire warehouse filled with TV's so that I could take a gun and shoot out the screen every time it offended me. Yes, the incident was petty and pathetic and uncalled for but not particularly a great surprise to me. There is absolutely no answer to this unless a majority gets disgusted and makes their feelings known. That does work. Look at how CBS got intimidated by a right- wing attack into canning the Ronald Reagan miniseries. Never even aired, I heard. A small but vocal minority threatened to hand them their heads on a platter and they caved. Even large numbers of only 'civilians' might succeed in this way without resort to political lobbies if the numbers were big enough. But you know what? Most people are now so desensitized they either don't notice or they just don't care. Lacking concerted resistance from significant numbers of folks, don't look for any big changes from the media guys anytime soon. They are making far too much money serving us endless streams of porn and violence to ever give up their addiction to those big profits. And of course a lot of those they 'serve' are also addicts in their own right, being desensitized specimens of humanity who simply take it all in passively and rarely bat an eyebrow. Sad. The fact is that people in this country got more upset about a miniseries which purportedly smears Mr. Reagan's performance in office (way overstated) than the few who are upset enough about the horrendous tidal wave of sex and violence to really try to do anything about it.

[usasma]

Y'know, this probably just feeds into the intent of the whole thing...more publicity - so when she next releases an album, she'll sell more!

[Peachy]

If anything, at least this makes great reading from a visual arts perspective! :DBTW, El Greco was one of my favourite painters when I took Art History in highschool.

[ibe98765]

NBC has now capitulated to the "dark force". This hypocrisy is getting out of hand. I'm sure NBC is reacting to advertiser concerns. If you are a Nielsen family member and think this action is foolish, then not watching ER this Thursday (I don't watch this show myself) would make sense.

http://billmon.org/archives/001017.htmlThe Breast Gestapo Strikes AgainNBC Excises 'ER' Breast SceneDays after Janet Jackson shocked the nation by baring her breast during the Super Bowl, NBC has agreed to edit out a brief shot of an 80-year-old woman's breast from Thursday night's episode of medical drama "ER" -- to the chagrin of the show's executive producer. In the scene, the breast is visible for less than two seconds in the background of a scene where doctors are giving the woman emergency care..."In consultation with our affiliate board we have asked 'ER' to remove a shot of an exposed breast of an 80-year-old woman receiving emergency care," NBC said. "Though we continue to believe the shot is appropriate and in context, and would have aired after 10:30 p.m. Eastern and Pacific time, we have unfortunately concluded that the atmosphere created by this week's events has made it too difficult for many of our affiliates to air this shot."

[Stonegiant]

Stonegiant,Well now I'm confused.  You say that fineing an insurance company billions of dollars is excessive but then claim that someone with lots of money will not be affected by a monetary loss?Just what DO you want to have be done to both of them?

Well, the link to the news article was just slightly excessive. 1.6 billion dollars for insurance defrauding for 8 years? The fact that it went on so long implies that she didn't need the insurance during that period. My point is that the laws that are supposed to simulate justice shouldn't allow that kind of silliness to get past a judge. That's a LOT of money for 8 years of defraud. Now, I understand that she won't seen near that amount, but still. Shouldn't these justice simulations have some kind of monetary limit placed upon them? In the news article, one person (or just a handful) were 'offended' by the defrauding. How many millions of people were 'offended' by Ms. Jackson's media <ahem> exposure? The fine for Ms. Jackson will likely be 6 figures. Perhaps even low 7 figures. Perhaps, it's my twisted sense of justice, but shouldn't Ms. Jackson be fined the $1.6 billion and the insurance company the 6 or 7 figures? All I'm trying to say is that there seems to be an inversion of importance when it comes to punishments these days.That's as political as I ever want to get. I hate politics, but they can't be escaped entirely.

[Stonegiant]

One more quick question for you, CM. How does one:

bat an eyebrow

Just curious

[Cluttermagnet]

One more quick question for you, CM.  How does one:

bat an eyebrow

Just curious

LOL. I may be mixing metaphors. Not sure. Perhaps it is "didn't bat an eyelash" or "didn't so much as raise an eyebrow". Picture Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock arching his vulcan eyebrow disdainfully in response to yet another 'illogical' utterance from Captain Kirk or one of the other merry Enterprise crew. :lol:I guess eyebrow batting would be a bit too vigorous and emphatic for the couch potato set (been there, done that, somehow miraculously got set free). Probably all that is needed most of the time is a disdainful glance towards anyone foolish enough to shatter the otherworldly vibrations in any room dominated by the one blue- eyed monster. Shaddup and watch, right? Save any serious eyebrow batting for the really serious offenders. Escalating sanctions beyond that get way too physical- throwing beer bottles or perhaps actually leaping up off the sofa to chase the miscreants away and restore order.

[Cluttermagnet]

If anything, at least this makes great reading from a visual arts perspective! :DBTW, El Greco was one of my favourite painters when I took Art History in highschool.

Fuuuuu-nee! The guy has quite the tart sense of irony, doesn't he? Yeah, he sounds like an art critic, but he certainly does have a good sense of humour. I got a good chuckle out of that piece.

[Cluttermagnet]

All I'm trying to say is that there seems to be an inversion of importance when it comes to punishments these days.That's as political as I ever want to get.  I hate politics, but they can't be escaped entirely.

Wow! We see news items like this from time to time. Reminds me of the famous scalding McDonalds coffee case. That woman got a very large settlement. An interesting sidenote there- apparently most news coverage neglected to mention that the coffee really did burn the living daylights out of her. This was more than just discomfort and redness for a day or so, though I forget the exact details. As Paul Harvey loves to say, "...and now you know the rest of the story". Well, actually, you should research that case for yourself and make up your own mind. Looked to me like a situation where both sides made some very good arguments. The plaintiff was made to look pretty shabby and outrageous by the media, but she ended up collecting anyway.1.6 billion with a "b"? Yikes! I guess that other jury also got swayed by some fast- talking shyster lawyer and wanted to send those insurance folks a message. It will get reduced on appeal, or maybe even be overturned.BTW I have not been really following the Janet Jackson story very closely at all. It pretty much bores me. I got a glance at some rerun footage but really did not see much at all. I know she got banned from the Grammys, but what's this about a 6-figure fine? Who would assess that fine, and can they make it stick? I don't think CBS can do it. Or the NFL. Maybe the FCC? I think that would be excessive. I just don't see how one more sorry incident of inappropriate sexual behavior is going to ruin the body politic. This country can take it. I just don't see that America is particularly hurt any more than it has already hurt itself over the years. I mean, this is not exactly the first time. It was the shock value that outraged some. Kicked up some shame feelings in a lot of folks. Not nice to have little surprises like this if you are trying to have a nice superbowl Sunday with your family. It was a cheap shot. It will probably really help her career. Again, I was shocked and outraged when Mr. Ashcroft hid "Lady Justice" behind a curtain. As far as I'm concerned, the two different events are just flip sides of the same coin.BTW I detest politics too! Trouble is, everything involving humans is inherently political. Go figure. I don't like that game. I don't play it very well. I don't enjoy it at all. But I'm resigned to its inevitability.

[Cluttermagnet]

It just occurred to me that the Janet Jackson incident was, in effect, an act of symbolic 'terrorism'. Think about it- the superbowl with a hundred thousand fans all pumped up on adreniline and cheap beer. Then add in the element of potential terrorism, the protected airspace, all the searches, all the guards checking everything. You start to form a mental picture of Bruce Dern in "Black Sunday", riding the big dirrigible over the stadium to blow it up. You brace for the explosion, but they catch the blimp and drag it backwards out over the ocean where its evil bomb explodes harmlessly. And then the real bomb goes off, and it is Janet Jackson. Such arrogant self- promotion. Such brilliant PR. She will come out ahead even after paying a record 1.6 billion fine. BTW American movies have somewhat accurately predicted most major terrorism events- combine elements of "Towering Inferno" with "Escape From New York" and then turn the volume all the way up and you have 9-11. In terrorist training camps, all they have to do is watch American disaster movies for two weeks straight, and they have their strategic plans for the next 5 years. Why reinvent the wheel?

[ibe98765]

It just occurred to me that the Janet Jackson incident was, in effect, an act of symbolic 'terrorism'.

Puh-leeze... Don't give Bush/Ashcroff any ideas!

[ibe98765]

San Francisco Chronicle readers weigh in on the question:

TWO CENTS Was the Super Bowl incident premeditated? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGUE4PRMD1.DTL

[henderrob]

My 2 bits worth? The majority of the half-time show would qualify as soft-core porn in the 1960's. If I was too offended, why didn't I just change the channel?

[longgone]

Okay, my $1.298 worth, I did not watch the half time show, so I missed the whole bare facts (boob). Oh well as has already been said more than once, if the media had not made such a fuss, it probably would not have received near the hype it is getting. I have seen several shows which are usually documentaries from what our society considers as under developed/backward countries where the women are naked from the waist up or are in the process of breast feeding an infant. It seems that depending upon what the situation is when something like this is shown totally delagates what the response wlill be. BTW the main reason I did not watch the half time show is because IMO the CBS affilate where I am located at in CA is as close to being in the dump as it can without actually having the statiion located there. Other than that I think CBS has about the best programming of the major networks.

[ebrke]

I found the rapper grabbing his crotch to be more tasteless than JJ's breast. And those commercials for "erectile disfunction"! The whole thing is indeed a tempest in a teapot, except that it shows that CBS will do anything for money except air Move On commercials. The idea that Move On is more distasteful than what was seen during half-time is what boggles my mind.

[Stonegiant]

What is 'Move On'?

[ibe98765]

What is 'Move On'?

MoveOn believes Mr. Bush should "move on" out of the Presdiency and back to his ranch in Texas:Link

[Guest LilBambi]

Move On makes a big fuss of wanting President Bush to go home ... but that's only a ruse ... there is much more to Move On than that. But since this is not a political discussion or a discussion on Move On ... we will move on and take it back to the topic of this thread.I agree, the young man was just as responsible as Janet ... that whole scene should not have happened during a half time show ... what was CBS thinking having MTV do the show in the first place ... they got what they paid for. Crap.

[Stryder]

I had a wardrobe malfunction once. Been a fan of button fly jeans every since!!!!