For the dyslexics above, I’m pretty sure it was her right tit. I’d give my left nut to see it without the spiked pasties or whatever the hell that thing was. (j.k.)
Given that an actual nipple was not bared, I can’t understand what the fuss is all about. I mean, we’ve seen the majority of Janet’s mams on the cover of Rolling Stone and goodness knows where else. I’ve seen just as much side-boob on NYPD Blue ten years ago. I found Dennis Franz’s ass quite a bit more offensive, but the gubmint didn’t investigate that shocking aweful horror, as far as I know.
I suppose some kind of law or rule was broken, which requires summary investigation. It more or less fits with the tenor of the current administration that they’d put a family-values spin on what is almost certainly bound to be a perfunctory toungue-lashing, at worst, for J.J.
Frankly, I think it would’ve been fun if Gwen Stefani yanked off that studded bustier Shania Twain wore at the last Pats Superbowl game. Now that thing was obscene.
I am concerned that the US authorities may now try to press the fallout from this incident onto the UK, whose intelligence services have been examining women’s bosoms for some time now, and last year presented a big pair of documents to the UN.
If this happens, Tony Blair might find himself standing out in the cold for all the world to see, his support stripped from him without warning.
There’ll be some pasty faces today at MI5, no doubt; I’d imagine that things will be feeling a bit wobbly. Have a couple of things been massaged? Have the bare facts been blown up - artificially enhanced, if you will?
The results are there for you to get to grips with - they’re available for close inspection daily on page 3 of at least one national newspaper.
When the naked truth of the matter is suddenly revealed, it might turn out that couple of tits in UK intelligence have contributed to at least one massive boob - now known as the ‘dodgy décolletage’.
People, People, People! Don’t you see what this is? Why it’s a case of history repeating itself. Isn’t there anyone here who is old enough to remember the first Tit Offensive? We have obviously learned nothing from history, and we are now bound to suffer through it again.
Nipplegate is too large a matter to be left to the Select House Committee on Wardrobe Malfunction.
What we need is an experienced investigator in this area who is ready to use every provision of the Patriots Act to full advantage. Since John Ashcroft is busy, let’s give Ken Starr a call.
Ripping the clothes off women is not appropriate behavior and does not belong in a family oriented venue.
Public display of nudity is not prohibited on TV but it is supposed to be accompanied by a warning just as any program containing violence does. Neither warning was given for the Superbowl.
Janet was wearing nipple jewelry that was pinned in place. It’s amazing she didn’t lose 1 or both of her nipples over this stunt.
If what I heard is correct, the 2 entertainers involved are supposed to be on the upcoming Grammy Awards. (only Timberlake is listed on their web site) This looks like an attempt to use one of the largest viewing audiences as an ad for another event. Now everyone is going to tune in just for the controversy of it.
True enough. My complaint was with the immediate conclusion that we would be spending federal money to investigate Janet Jackson’s tit.
Well, actually… yes. The federal government is the right agency to control the airwaves. We can debate the specifics, but the truth of the matter is that there are many families that don’t want their kids seeing Janet Jackson’s breast, and had no fair warning that this was on the menu. I’m not in favor of a blanket policy banning bared breasts on the airwaves in all circumstances, but I am in favor of some system that gives viewers warning that such viewing is in the offing.
In general, I absolutely want less government. But that doesn’t mean I favor NO government, and here’s a case in which I think the federal government’s reach is appropriate.
All that said… I certainyl would not fine any station that did not know what was coming.
Well, I’m glad to know that Mr. Powell is incensed enough to make an investigation into Janet’s mammaries the top priority of his office. Better for the FCC to throw their weight into a half-second peekaboo instead of wasting the taxpayers’ dime on determining the problems on having more media outlets owned by a handful of corporate conglomerates. Priorities, people!
Yeah, that bit about fining every single affiliate for something that was the responsibility of the network seems over the top, unless Mr. Powell is using that as a pressure tactic – using a threat against the not-so-deep-pocketed local stations in order to make them do the dirty work of putting pressure from below on the LA/NY-based networks to keep it clean(*). Of course, I could be misinterpreting and he may mean he’d fine Viacomfor each station that carried the feed, which would make more sense.
jrd
(* If you run a TV station in Holy Heartland Holler, Arkansas, and your viewers and advertisers raise bloody hell over something that’s the network’s fault, not yours, you have a legitimate reason to bring it to the network’s attention, 'cause it’s the free market at work. If you do so because the FCC is causing you pain, that’s coercion by the government.)
Timberlake is referring to this as a “wardrobe malfunction”.
The wrong agency is investigating; this is clearly a job for the Federal Trade Commission.
We need a massive recall of all these outfits before disaster strikes at every shopping mall in America.
Can I interject here for a moment? I realize this is a lot of fun and everything, but the subject of the investigation is not Ms Jackson’s over-exposed boobs or Mr Timberlake(another over-exposed boob). The question is did the CBS and MTV management deliberately put material they knew violated FCC rules onto TV for the shock, news, and publicity. Was there a conspiracy involving the abovementioned boobs and suits in CBS/MTV? At a time when foul language is increasingly shown in prime time television, including “family shows”, and shows without mature content disclaimers(count the times someone on “Friends” has shouted “Bitch”, “Shit”, “Ass”, etc) and the producers of this content seem to be skirting the rules already, it is completely believable that this kind of stunt may cross their minds. Think of it like a trial balloon.
At the moment the trial balloon seems to be crashing and burning.
If the CBS and MTV execs planned this as a way of seeing how much they could get away with. Knowing this would violate the licensees contract with the FCC in an effort to put more and more nudity(and thus attract more and more viewers) on TV but with plausible denialibilty(although “wardrobe malfunction” is pretty unplausible), then they need to be spanked into the last century. If they want to change the definitions of what is and is not acceptable on TV then they should work to lobby for it instead of unilaterally deciding to show two seconds of boobs on one of the highest-rated timeslots in the entire broadcast year.
JRDelirious. The FCC would be going after individual stations instead of the network because the network doesn’t have a deal with the FCC, the stations are licensed as independently owned and operated stations. They may all buy programming from the network, but the network doesn’t actually broadcast the programming, they just produce it. The breech of contract didn’t come from CBS videotaping a boobie, it came from the stations broadcasting that image. If I make a porn film, should I be fined by the FCC? No violation has yet occurred. What about if I sell it to a station and they never broadcast it? Same answer, no violation has occurred. What if they do broadcast it? That’s where the violation occurs and it is absolutely the sole perrogative of the individual rebroadcaster. They certainly had the option not to broadcast it. Their sole discretion as to what signals go out over their tower. Maybe they have some contract with the network which means they are supposed to be able to trust content the network puts together, but that is not the level on which the FCC is involved. The FCC just cares about the actual broadcast.
I should add here that if the individual stations do have such a contract, then they should sue the bejeebus out of CBS for providing content which violates FCC rules. Still, the FCC is involved at the station level, not the network level. Anything the FCC does is hammered out(dictated to actually) with the individual stations and license owners.
Too soon to tell. If it makes more people watch the halftime special next year, it’s worked. Ad rates will go up and probably offset any fine that CBS receives, which probably won’t be more than pocketchange for a major coporation.
I would also like to point out that this isn’t a current administration policy. It’s been Commission policy to investigate charges of obscenity on broadcast stations and fine the licensees since 1934 when it was set up.
If you want to see a Supreme Court case explicitly saying this is constitutional, check out FCC v Pacifica Foundation (1978).
