You're kidding, right?
Feb. 2nd, 2004 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aruanAccording to CNN, the FCC is launching an immediate investigation into the events of the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
It's not like we're waiting for a new budget approval, fighting a war, or barely clinging to a bullish market. Nope, what matters most, for which an investigation "thorough and swift" will be launched, is a "wardrobe malfunction."
Wow.
It's not like we're waiting for a new budget approval, fighting a war, or barely clinging to a bullish market. Nope, what matters most, for which an investigation "thorough and swift" will be launched, is a "wardrobe malfunction."
Wow.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: February 2nd, 2004 08:52 am (UTC)Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 09:00 am (UTC)Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 09:04 am (UTC)"And, by the way, there was a game last night."
Yep, the CNN anchor said it all right there. Hat's off to whoever planned this stunt, man.
Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 09:02 am (UTC)Bwahahaha! "Just-in accident?" asks the CNN anchor. Okay, this might be fun once I'm done being horrified by the outrage.
no subject
Date: February 2nd, 2004 09:04 am (UTC)I'm glad they're doing this. It's the politically correct thing to do. And not because of the idea that children were watching and parents had heart attacks.
But because it's nice to see a government agency go after a big business. For once. And do its job.
Because that is its job.
Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 09:08 am (UTC)Also, as I mentioned above, we saw more of Lil' Kim when she wore that outfit to the VMAs, which we saw a lot more and more extensively than a brief distance flash of Janet. I think if Janet wasn't in on it, yeah, someone should be called to the carpet and duly punished, but otherwise all the fuss is just silly.
YMMV, of course.
no subject
Date: February 2nd, 2004 10:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: February 2nd, 2004 11:26 am (UTC)Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 11:44 am (UTC)As far as the scarred children, they shouldn't have been watching the halftime show in the first place. Parents should've changed the channel as soon as Justin and Janet began dancing together. Personally, I found some of that more questionable than the boob flash. *shrug*
Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 12:49 pm (UTC)The point is that CBS aired something inappropriately at a time when young children were watching. Not only that, but based on the beginning of the halftime show, "Choose to vote, Choose to be differen, Choose to reach" the argument can be made that the show itself was geared toward a young audience, younger even than your or I, people who are still forming.
As in anything else in life, it's important that the rules and regulations set forth by government commissions are followed. When they are broken, bent, or otherwise misused, it's in everybody's best interests that the subject be persued. If not - where do we stop?
It's true - now isn't the greatest time to be spending money on things like prosecuting networks for accidentally displaying inappropriate material. But this will be settled out of court because no major network wants its name to be dragged through the mud. If America is going to take a stand about things that are going on in other countries, why can't it also take care of the things that are upsetting its own citizens within its borders?
Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 08:36 pm (UTC)It's not the first time that cases have been brought up against networks nor will it be the last, I'm sure.
No, definitely not the first time. There’s a reason the seven-second live broadcast delay rule is in place. Though apparently, even that’s at the station’s discretion.
Years ago there was a case brought up against NBC (I think it was NBC) regarding an Oscar winner using the word "fuck" during his acceptance speech.
As far as “curse” words – words only have as much power as you give them. I think Harry Potter paraphrases a famous philosopher when he mentions that having fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself, with regard to his saying Voldemort’s name willy-nilly. There was an episode of South Park which poked fun at the hoopla surrounding the saying of ‘shit’ on an episode of NYPD Blue, which was talked about like the whole world was going to come crashing down because of it. The episode was genius in its treatment of this topic – it mirrored the occurrence in one of its fictional shows, and because this barrier had been broken, the people of the town felt it was okay to say the word anytime, anywhere, until it literally became the curse of the town, raining plagues down on them until they learned how to reverse its effects – using the word properly. Many are convinced that so-called “curse” words are simply a lazy way of expression – personally, I think they have their place, and I hereby make the bold prediction that it won’t in fact rain blood and toads the day it happens for real.
Besides, any shows that would take that step expecting their audiences to understand why the choice to use that word was made is hopefully geared and time-slotted toward its appropriate audience.
The point is that CBS aired something inappropriately at a time when young children were watching.
Wait, you’re saying that young children won’t be disturbed by a sport devoted to men shoving and tackling and purposely attacking each other over a piece of pigskin, but a woman’s breast is cause for alarm?
The point is they shouldn’t have been watching the SuperBowl in the first place.
Not only that, but based on the beginning of the halftime show, "Choose to vote, Choose to be differen, Choose to reach" the argument can be made that the show itself was geared toward a young audience, younger even than your or I, people who are still forming.
Voting is a privilege extended only to citizens of this country over the age of 18, admittedly an arbitrary figure in and of itself, but an age when it’s unnatural to assume that your audience wouldn’t have already been exposed to things like sex (or at least anatomy or sex education). As far offending good sense, that it did, but it didn’t expose anyone to anything traumatizing like the dramarama would have believed.
Continued...
Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 08:38 pm (UTC)The whole ‘we elect the government that makes our rules’ thing aside, I don’t see myself reflected in very much of the principles, decisions, and motives of my officials. Commissions are just groups of people given some measure of power over a certain issue who then form opinions and impose their subjective standards. I’m not suggesting anarchy, I’m saying that many issues trusted to white, old Republicans could better be approached by a younger, more diverse set.
When they are broken, bent, or otherwise misused, it's in everybody's best interests that the subject be persued. If not - where do we stop?
If they’re broken, bent, or otherwise misused, fault doesn’t necessarily or automatically lie with the offender. There’s every chance the rules themselves are outdated, overly restrictive, too broadly defined, or otherwise flawed. We’ve repealed amendments to the constitution on said grounds, and for that matter, made them! I think a lot of governmental policy needs an operating system update to be applicable to all the new technologies, changing conventions, and evolutions of today. I’m not saying let’s start from scratch, but I think people take a lot of things for granted that just don’t apply anymore.
If America is going to take a stand about things that are going on in other countries, why can't it also take care of the things that are upsetting its own citizens within its borders?
Well, the ethics of that particular point can also be debated until kingdom come. Interventionist policies, for the record, aren’t the way of all Americans. Also, not everyone is upset by this! Most people, I’m sure, couldn’t care less – our world does not yet entirely revolve around the voyeuristic entertainment cottage industry that’s sprung up in the interest of invading the lives of celebrities. Those who do care need to take a look at why. And perhaps get a life.
As a federal commission it already has money allocated for issues such as this.
Yes, yes it does, with $293 million proposed for the 2005 fiscal year alone. Which, in a time when education, social welfare, and environmental programs are being cut, I find to be a gross misallocation of resources. But that’s just me.
Censorship is subjective. Not only is it subjective, it is a fundamental violation of First Amendment rights. The topics being included under this dubious umbrella of “protection” and “public decency” are as defined by, as I’ve said before, predominantly old, white Repulicans with dated and unilaterally conservative values. Federal Communications Commission standards are arbitrary at best and outdatedly Puritanical at worst. They reflect neither the changing acceptance within American culture, nor the realities of life. I think a lot of things that are considered acceptable, especially in criminal dramas, should be censored, but see no particular point in choosing to save the virgin eyes and ears of our children from the F-word and a woman’s breast. I think the stunt was crass because, well, it was crass, not because of the sole fact of Janet’s breast. I’m not offended by her breast, nor do I think any children were scarred in the revealing of it, and if any were then there are parents in that equation who have not been having the kind of educational talks free from stigma, dogma, and awkwardness about the human body.
The controversy is actually that Janet’s nipple was shown. It’s like any law - yeah, things happened, but there are only certain grounds on which it can be prosecuted, and if the FCC finds the responsible party, that will be their contention, as it is the sole clear violation of current standards. And, come on now, let’s all take a moment to consider how glaringly baffling that is – networks can show a woman’s breast, but not her nipple? Who drew that line and how?
And continued yet again...
Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 08:38 pm (UTC)Should the person responsible for staging this ridiculous and, yes, admittedly crass stunt? Yes. Has the objective of said stunt been regardlessly accomplished by an increasingly classless entertainment industry and a news media that sensationalizes sexuality? Yes. There are many things wrong with the system, not the most of which is Janet’s breast.
Re:
Date: February 3rd, 2004 07:42 am (UTC)Though all your arguments were definitely incredibly sound, hats off to you.
I think the point simply is that...
1. Whether or not the rules make sense today, they are there for a purpose. Whether or not we agree with them, they are still there. And by saying, "Don't worry about it, a bunch of rich dead white guys came up with it" can only lead to no good.
2. As an avid sports fan, I need to disagree with your commentary on football. Yes it's a rough sport but six year olds are playing touch football and learning the rules. I'd rather see my children outside playing football than playing anything involving shooting people. AND I'd rather see my boys or girls playing football than being cheerleaders. Of course, I'm also a huge fan of rugby and hockey.
My point is simply this: Something was violated and the FCC should go after it. It's spent the last few years making it easier for big businesses to have a hold on an industry (it's legal to own up to 35% of the broadcast network air space *can't remember the right words, I'm sorry, it's early* and CBS has 34%?) and is now standing up against that big business and holding it accountable for its actions. That is what I like about this action. That is why I'm all for it.
And... I was at a party of about 20 people watching it. And nobody wanted to see it.
And if CBS says it didn't know... somebody knew if MTV was planning a shocker at the end. It, as a network, needs to take more responsibility in knowing what it's airing. So now maybe next time it will.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go vote in a primary. *winks*
Re:
Date: February 3rd, 2004 08:10 am (UTC)As many a sports fan has disagreed with my opinion on football. But that's entirely our own respective opinions, and obviously, I'm the one in the minority on that issue.
My only problem is that nebulous "something" that the FCC claims to be able to define. I'm with the Supreme Court's 'know it when we see it' policy on pornography, and yes, the stunt was classless and uncalled-for. I think the point I was trying to make is that there would be the same kind of uproar had this (being the prosecutable offense, the exposure of Janet's nipple, and wow it's still funny to hear stuffy CNN anchors say that word) happened on a network drama in the context of, say, a consentual (though not necessarily intra-marital or love-motivated) sex scene. It's an arbitrary (and god, I'm sick of myself using that word) line in the sand.
I think they just lobbied successfully to have it increased to 40 or even 45%, no? For the record, I think many of the FCC's policies are very beneficial in preserving variety in our newscasts, broadcasting standards, etc. But when they're deciding to drop the gavel on subjective issues, I mostly find myself shaking my head.
Yay for political activism!
no subject
Date: February 2nd, 2004 01:33 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: February 2nd, 2004 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: February 3rd, 2004 05:31 am (UTC)Re:
Date: February 3rd, 2004 06:45 am (UTC)