FCC poised to slap CBS - FCC Memo from Chairman

[Loonman]

pdf file


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243435A1.pdf

[wryter2000]

1. Un-effing-believable

For those of you who don't want to wait for Adobe to open it, Powell (son of) is going to investigate CBS for a crass and tasteless stunt -- the SuperBowl half-time show.

He should have done what we did at half-time...watch CNN for the Moveon commercial.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. Or go after Shrub for his crass and tasteless aircraft carrier stunt

[lpbk2713]

2. Note to FCC: What do expect when the brass at CBS and MTV put their

puny little heads together?

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. I simply cannot believe the extremity of the response to this

So go on national TV and call her and Timberlak a couple of moronic bozos whose careers are about dead.

But otherwise, God forbid a child should see a breast that wasn't fully exposed that lasted for all of a few seconds.

If the FCC is to do something, go after MTV, CBS, and the NFL for dumbing down america and replacing artistry with overblown hype and kitsch and stupidity. That's the real crime.

[BigDaddyLove]

6. Not to mention doing what 'the people' want with regard to.....

keeping the popular media out of the hands of a few, rather than caving in and giving our airwaves away to the highest bidder.

I can only imagine that the (over) reaction is being directed from on high (White House) so that the 'base' gets some red meat this week.


PS...nice painting!!

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. Oh yeah - hadn't even thought of that!

The FCC is willing to sell all the media to three people and thinks that's fine.

Thanks for the compliment!

[ima_sinnic]

5. what a bunch of crap

so much hoopla over an exposed breast--big whoop

I thought maybe the "slap" was because of CBS's refusal to air the MoveOn ad--ha ha, that WOULD be wishful thinking now wouldn't it? Dumbasses--if the media, the network, and now the FCC would ignore it the BFD breast exposure would soon be forgotten, but no, they gotta keep digging it up and making a big deal out of it, which ensures that it will be in our faces for quite some time to come.

yeah, "classless, crass and deplorable"--sort of like The Chimp's aircraft carrier and fake turkey stunts, right bozo??

sheesh.

[Liberal Christian]

7. I've been thinking

. . . which is always a dangerous thing.

I've read many comments on DU since the Super Bowl halftime show saying "What's the big deal? It's only a breast! Geez, Americans are such Puritans!!!!"

To me the big deal is not about the breast. It's about the casual disparagement of women, about saying once again that women are only sex objects. Every time I think we've come somewhere in that regard in the last 35 years, I'm wrong again.

Why are people not concerned that what we saw was a man stripping a woman in public? It's not too long a trip to make from a man grabbing a woman and stripping her publically to a man or a group of men gang-raping a woman on a pool table in a bar. Janet Jackson got her clothes ripped off because she was a woman. You'd never see a show where a woman ripped off a man's pants, exposing his sexual organs. It wouldn't happen. How is it ok for a man to approach a woman in public and rip her clothes off? How is that remotely ok?

If Janet Jackson had appeared of her own volition is a breast-baring dress, that would have been one thing. That could have been a celebration of the female body. But this was not. This was, once again, a representation of the subjugation and objectification of women.

It bothers me that more people on DU, supposedly liberals who care about feminist concerns, don't get that.

[Pithlet]

9. That aspect of it bothered me, too.

And I'm in the "boobs are no big deal" crowd. To me, that is an issue to get upset over more than the fact that it was a breast that was exposed. It's like getting upset that a bank robber double parked while robbing the bank.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. I hear ya!

The two things that bother me in this episode are a) that this is purely an attempt by them to be "edgy" and "ooh - shocking!" and served no artistic purpose and fed into our society's weird sense of sexual obsession/repression, and b) that it had to be done in a demeaning way by having Justin take the thing off through a simulated rape scenario.

I, too, am bothered that so much of DU seems to be upset either that their kids saw a bare breast (whoopee :eyesroll: ) or don't care about the ubermeaning of the act itself in terms of objectification, and also what the exposing act means in our culture: that is, that our culture isn't sexually mature, and thus finds scandal where there should be no scandal: in a woman's breast.

[BigDaddyLove]

13. But if in fact this 'stunt' was indeed planned by the both........

of them, then how is society objectifing women? If Janet was in on it, was she intentionally demeaning herself?

[Liberal Christian]

14. Sure

It's clear that women play into and agree to this objectification all the time. You see it in one music video after another, not to mention in tons of advertising, in Abercrombie and Fitch catalogs, in frat boys sitting on their rooftops and rating women who walk by, etc. It doesn't make it right.

One way that some people have tried to balance the scales is by objectifying and bashing men. This adds not one iota of balance and, in fact, continues to escalate the issue. The problem is in treating anyone as an object, as something less than human, as something that it's ok "have your way" with, even when no permission has been given.

Even if Janet was in on it, the ritualistic public enactment does more than demean her. It gives tacit permission to a society to do it to others.

[BigDaddyLove]

19. I do not disagree with anything you've written on this topic........

but I do get a little mystified when girls/women make sure they look a certain way so that the maximum number of heads turn, but then complain about being 'oogled' when it happens.

I constantly see girls wearing clothing that leaves very little to the male imagination....if that is their choice then why be surprised or offended when they get the attention they seem to be asking for?

[Liberal Christian]

21. I agree it's a fine line

And I wish I knew the answers. Clearly, every species on earth finds a way to arrange its plumage to appeal to the opposite sex. And, I think that most women who intentionally dress to appeal probably hope that a head or two will turn.

When eyes bug out, tongues hang out, drool collects at the corners of mouth, rude remarks are made, and the assumption that the woman is available to anyone who wants her is taken on, then a line has been crossed.

It seems to me that there's a line between internal appreciation and harassment that's worth observing.

[BigDaddyLove]

24. That line is so subjective as to be almost meaningless........

anymore. Aside from the obvious behavior that would make any woman uncomfortable....sometimes it's really hard to know where the line is; when is legitimate appreciation construed as harassment?

Personally, I find girls that try too hard at trying to make themselves into whatever they think is the ultimate male fantasy pretty uninteresting.

[Loonman]

16. Hmmm......good conundrum

Is a woman who flashes her breast(s) in public empowering herself and rejecting implied sexuality or is she a tool for commerce?


Good question.....

[Liberal Christian]

18. It's not about sexuality

Janet Jackson did not "flash her breast." Justin Timberlake reached over and tore her clothing away. This is a whole different dynamic. This is symbolic violence against women. It is form of sexual assault, which is almost never about sex, but almost always about power, dominance, and violence.

[BigDaddyLove]

20. Justin did indeed reach over and rip the section of.........

clothing off, but if they planned it that way, then I can only see this a measure of violence against women in an extremely remote sense. If he did it on his own without her consent, then your position would have more substance.

[Liberal Christian]

23. It's the fact that someone ...

... seems to have intentionally choreographed it that bothers me. "I know! We can really shake up America! Let's have a symbolic act of male-on-female sexual aggression during the halftime show!!! That'll sell some beer!!!"

Whether the costume malfunctioned (which is what Timberlake and Jackson alleged last night) or not, something was clearly meant to happen in that moment that involved a man ripping off a woman's clothes, without her participation in the act, in public. Someone thought that would be "entertainment."

I just don't think that's helpful.

[BigDaddyLove]

29. This point of view makes sense to me.........

I don't think it's helpful either,

Sorry it took me so long.


:hi:

[Loonman]

22. Hmmm.....sounds like you have an axe to grind

Hoping for an objective response.

[Liberal Christian]

25. I have no "axe to grind"

I have been concerned about feminist issues for over 30 years. This is personal only in the sense that the personal IS political.

Why is it that a woman cannot be concerned about something that affects the image of women without being dismissed as "having an axe to grind?"

[Loonman]

27. You didn't answer my question, for one

n/t

[Liberal Christian]

28. What question did I not answer?

If this was your question, Is a woman who flashes her breast(s) in public empowering herself and rejecting implied sexuality or is she a tool for commerce?, then I did address what I thought to be the issue.

Were you, in fact, broadening the issue to include, for instance, women who flash their breasts at Mardi Gras and other events? If so, I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I would say offhand that if that is their choice, they are probably doing it for reasons of their own. If they find it empowering, then it may be so. I don't know, never having been one who found empowerment through that means.

If you were still asking a question about my concern about the Timberlake-Jackson incident, then I believe I did answer your question when I said that the event was choreographed to show Timberlake ripping off clothing without permission. Admittedly, Jackson would have had to consent to that, but I still disagree with it having been choreographed in the first place for such a mainstream event because of the symbolic violence it implies and appears to condone.

Part of this mix is that Super Bowl Sunday is one of the busiest days in the year for battered women's shelters and police on domestic violence calls. I'm not sure we need further violence, ritualized, symbolic, or whatever you want to call it, to add fuel to those fires.

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. I agree with you, WyoMee, except the domestic violence thing

I'll say more later, but alas, I'm kinda busy.

But let me say I think you DID answer the question, and the 'axe to grind" asking person has, perhaps, an axe to grind.

But the Super Bowl Sunday demostic violence upsurge meme is false.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

And snopes just updated this one a couple days ago. I do like to set everyone straight that there is no increase on Super Bwl Sunday, and, as one will see in the report, the only statistical correlation that might be evident is a slight upsurge in domestic violence in those areas that have a home team who won on any particular game day.

I think yor arguments are great so far. Sorry I couldn't chime in before.

[Liberal Christian]

32. Rabrrrrr, thanks for your support

However, while it may be true that nationwide the incidence of domestic violence doesn't go up, I have talked to people who work and volunteer at domestic violence shelters.

One friend in Green Bay says that their shelter is much busier when the Packers lose.

A friend in Wyoming validated the Super Bowl/domestic violence meme with increased numbers most years.

So, while I accept your correction that it is not a big nationwide rise, I think there is anecdotal evidence to indicate a correlation.

[Loonman]

37. Correlation does not imply causation

n/t

[nini]

26. I agree.. but it appeared she was in on it.

which to me takes away the objectification aspect for me

I agree that it does makes it seem ok for a man to do that to a woman.

[Rabrrrrrr]

31. It's not whether she was in on it - it was staged as a rape action

Yes, Janet Jackson was in it. But the persona/character on stage that was represented in the song and performed by Janet Jackson was NOT in on it.

It wasn't janet Jackson saying "Justin can take my coverings off", it was saying that it's okay for "man" to take off the clothing of "woman".

[BigDaddyLove]

33. For it to be construed as a 'rape action'.....

is to read an awful lot into it....especially if it was indeed an accident.

Even if it wasn't accidental, I didn't see it as a rape action, just another symptom of how low our collective taste/entertainment threshold has become.

[Rabrrrrrr]

34. But take it symbolically, not literally

Even if it was accidental that the breast was exposed, and the intent was only to remove an outer layer of clothing, that still leaves us with the fact of the intent: which is a man forcibly removing a woman's piece of clothing (not in actuality, Justin vs. Janet, but symbolically, as justin-male-figure vs. janet-female-figure).

is that rape in the geenrally used term "Forced her to have sex" - no. But rape is not about sex - rape is a violent act, whether any physical sex act is committed, or even intended, and a violent act that is about power: in this case, that the man has power over the woman, and hence claims ownership of her body.

Don't think of it as Justin and Janet. Look at them symbolically. In that symbolic act the statement was being made that it is erotic, or okay, or decent, for a man to take power over a female. Or even more abstractly, for one person to take ownership of another.

[nini]

35. It also goes along with the song being played..

the song had something to do with I'll get your clothes off by the end of the song.

This action played into the song.


I see where you're coming from, but I didn't see 'this particular' episode is that extreme.

[Rabrrrrrr]

36. thanks for pointing that out

Normally, this would be a small act - it is overall just a simulated removal of one smallpiece of clothing, and not total, invasive sexual nastiness, and had they had done this little stunt during a concert, that's one thing. It's still bad, but not so major.

But this one becomes extreme - though I don't know if I'd call it that, but it certainly becomes a lot more serious, because of its context: live on the most watched TV show of the year.

[nini]

40. I agree with this being the wrong time to do something like that

Actually, the song itself could have been a bit less seductive, but then we live in an 'Enquirer' world now and the 'shock' effect seems to be what performers think they have to go for.

I'm sure she did alot to help the Jackson family reputation too :-)

[Rabrrrrrr]

41. And the sad part is, if we had a mature outlook on sexuality

there would be no need to do something so "shocking".

All I can think is that in many areas of Europe, they're saying, "Hey - look - America finally showed a breast on TV!"

If we didn't view our bodies as "dirty" and/or purely sexually, this never would have happened. Or, it would have happened, and we would have ho-hummed it because we'd be used to seeing unclothed breasts and there would be no scandal attached to it.

But that's another debate.

Still doesn't belie the inappropriate overlying themes of this particular act, though.

I bet the nudists of the world are just LAUGHING and laughing and laughing....

[coyote]

11. We have no choice.

We have to invade Janet Jackson. She possesses breasts of mass disruption. We know she has them. We know where she keeps them. She's used them on her own people. Just one handful of this substance is enough to cause complete loss of control by our populace. Unless we take care of this gathering threat, our entire beer swilling, nacho inhaling lifestyle could endangered. May god bless our institutionalized shame.

[Loonman]

12. Viacom contact page is missing

They must be getting massive amounts of email.

http://www.viacom.com/factsandfig.tin#contact

[arwalden]

15. Is "LIVE TV" Over?

Will everything have a 60 second delay so that censors can get control over this runaway situation??

-- Allen

[hippiechick]

17. We can have the Lingerie Bowl but not a BARE boob ??

Ok, now I am SERIOUSLY confused.


:hippie:

[ploppy]

38. At least

it made the media shut up about Michael for a few minutes. I am on Jackson Family overload.

[Loonman]

39. So what's next?

Madonna, at the Grammys, dilates her own cervix while we view it on Speculo-cam©?

[nolabels]

42. Unless they are going to revoke their charter, its all just purffery......

By people that obey the wishes to their corporate masters. Powell and his daddy are both wimps, and why should we care anyway. Janet's embossed nipple is no more a consequence than that homeless man down the street without a nickle in his pocket.

Both are repugnant from the standpoint represent the USA's failure to address issues and none of them will stop me from going to work tomorrow. I Pay my taxes the best I can yet some people in government seem to be wasting the funds they take in from everybody on some very irrelevant items.

These people afraid of a womans breast really should see a therapist