understand your pov.... but i guess if the aim was to show the best and brightest America then why on earth would Justin Timberlake be involved , luckily for myself it wasn't till his name was spelt in the balloons (or whatever they were) that i knew that guy was Janet was even Timberlake....... do people really get shocked by a breast with a nipple cover on it these days....... must be hell of lot more people out there who have never seen a breast...... there is a hell of lot more nudity in most main stream TV and Movies as an aside ..... real or fake????
Don't know if it has been stated, but this will be discussed on Nightline tonight: Nightline Daily E-Mail February 2, 2004 TONIGHT'S FOCUS: Decency on TV. Now a lot of people will say that those two terms are mutually exclusive. But the day after the half-time show, everyone seems to be talking about what can and cannot be shown on TV, and perhaps more importantly, what should be shown. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, confession first. I missed the halftime show yesterday, or at least the part of it that has drawn so much attention. For those of you who haven't heard by now, Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson were performing together and whether or not it was planned, Justin tore away part of Janet's costume, revealing one of her breasts. This was on live TV, and in the 8 o'clock hour, once referred to as the "family hour." It has sparked quite an outcry. CBS and MTV, which produced the halftime show, have said that this was not planned and they are not pleased. Justin Timberlake has apologized for what he termed a "wardrobe malfunction." Shortly after halftime, a streaker got on the field, but CBS did not show him. It was about the only thing people were talking about this morning on the radio. There is a larger issue here, and it's not the speculation that Timberlake and Jackson were once involved with each other. What is appropriate to show on TV? And when? Language that was once forbidden is now a regular part of prime time fare. During the "family hour," the language may be more acceptable, but for parents of young children, some of the subject matter is certainly problematic. Cable has always had different standards, but these days, with the majority of homes having cable, that seems to be a difference without much distinction. A child with a remote can't tell the difference between cable and the commercial networks. And what to do about live events? We've all seen sports figures say things in the heat of the moment that make it onto our screens. Even if you can't hear them, anyone who can lip-read has a pretty good idea of how most coaches respond to calls that go against their teams. Should live events be broadcast with a short delay, allowing language or images to be cleaned up? Is that appropriate for news events too? Or is this the responsibility of the parents? Isn't it their responsibility to know what their kids are watching, and to make sure it's appropriate? Do we want to go back to more stringent regulations? We'll try to make sense of all of this tonight. Dave Marash will report on the latest controversy. I'm not sure how we're going to show all the things that we're going to talk about, but we'll figure that out. Ted will anchor, and I hope you'll join us. Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff ABCNEWS Washington bureau MAJOR
Are you rolling your eyes at Nightline? It seems like they're doing exactly what they're supposed to - discussing a current event that has some political relevance: Is it worth it to get into a fuss? What's the fuss about? Is it really so bad? If it's bad, what will be done? What can be done? Yeah, there are other things Nightline can focus on... but they can take a break once in a while, too, from the usual war and presidency stuff.
It's ABC and Nightline that's making this an even bigger deal than it is. I see this in two ways: 1.) It was a terrible act; it shouldn't be discussed or brought up again because more 'innocent' people would see this, creating more and more media-driven sensationalism. -or- 2.) It's not a big deal. I don't see what's the big deal. There is no reason to make this a big deal. Just move on with it. It was a breast; things like this happen much more. Why spend people's money investigating this when it could be spent thousands of other ways (such as to fight hunger or increase national security). What really sickens me is that the stupid, sick media (namely ABC) is making even MORE $$$ off of something. How are they going to talk about on Nightline??? Janet was exposed; how will this affect the children??? WTF?!?! Because of this, I have to say: **** VIACOM and **** DISNEY (pending viewership of tonight's Nightline presentation). This smut belongs on FOX, not 'classy' national media outlets.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not when you seem angry. I think this is probably an interesting discussion. Disney/ABC didn't make this a big deal by airing something on Nightline one day after the fact.. the uproar was immediate (even before yesterday's game was over). Is the media milking it? Yes. Is the FCC milking it? Maybe. Is it worth talking about? Well, judging from the polarized reactions, I think so. Nightline usually does a good job at least starting a discourse if not completely detailing it. I think this is an interesting topic because complaints about Family Hour no longer being good fro children have been around for a while, yet the FCC hasn't stepped in for years (remember Temptation Island?). But, in this instance, it's so blatant that Michael Powell and the FCC felt they must intervene. Should they? Aren't there bigger priorities? Worse actions on TV? Should the audience know the Super Bowl halftime show may be risque (or even the whole thing since lip-reading is very easy to do when they show players talking to each other)? Is it a "typical American over-reaction" when it comes to sex? Good questions, I think.
It's just a freakin' boob. Get over it! It's no wonder we have so many sexual perverts in this country, everyone is repressed, even with the something as simple as the mammary. Damn, didnt God make Adam and Eve naked? I'd understand if Janet ripped a codpiece of Justin to expose his peapod, but it was just a breast, not even both, for one damn second.
