So, did she or didn’t she?
Was Janet Jackson’s “releasing of a single” during Superbowl half-time a prank on her, a publicity stunt by her, or more “Gee, aren’t we clever” shenanigans by MTV.
I suspect neither the NFL nor CBS are, yet, quite risque enough to have actually planned it. Their statements about it come across as more petulant (i.e., “They didn’t tell us about it beforehand! How dare they!”) then condemnatory, perhaps for fear of seeming stodgy.
Mr Timberlake claims it was all just a catastrophic wardrobe failure when he yanked on JJ’s dress (which one person called “abatoir chic”) and had half her bodice ripped off. In which case, I expect to hear about a massive law suit by Ms Jackson against said wardrober.
I’ve yet to hear, though, any reasonable explanation for Ms Jackson’s pasty, which kept her from displaying any actual nipplage on coast-to-coast “family hour” TV. Except it wasn’t really a pasty, but an, ah, accessory, from what I can see. Regardless, it does not look like something anyone would wear were one not aiming at showing off the goods at some point.
My guess? Ms Jackson is feeling her age, and her attendant popularity slipping. Certainly she doesn’t exactly look like all that sexy a lady up there, and this could well have been a quick and easy way to generate a lot of publicity (“Janet Jackson? Oh, yeah, da gal wit da bare boob!”).
As to whether MTV would be party to such an action — well, I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
But if it were intentional, it was either blindingly incompetent (if meant to come across as an “accident”) or else pretty chickenshit (if meant to be a bold erotic statement).
I must confess that I missed the Big Show — I was busy GMing. And, frankly, I don’t think I missed all that much.
As to whether this is the Crime of the Century — well, get real. It was improper for ostensibly family fare, but, frankly, not that big a step from the NFL-sanctioned jiggle shots of the cheerleaders. If anything, it just strikes me as a sad effort by a washing-up pop star and a no-talent boy-toy, at the best of an exploitative production company, to grab a few headlines — and coming off as just tawdry and silly as a result.
(via Les)
For heaven’s sake, look at the close-up — the bit that mysteriously “failed” in the wardrobe is held on with snaps. Isn’t that sort of what snaps are supposed to do if you pull on them?
So … multi-zillion dollar law suit by Miss Jackson against the wardrobe folks, or against Justin, or both. Otherwise it’s pretty clarly a set-up (which it pretty clearly is).
The so-called accident wasn’t that Timberlake ripped something off, it was that he ripped off more than he should have. Supposedly, he was supposed to leave behind the red lace or whatever.
That nipple ornament is pretty damning, though. Why wear it if you didn’t intend to show it off? It certainly doesn’t look comfortable.
Watch this one get shoved under a rug in some undisclosed settlement, eventually, when the media hype dies down.
Then again, the FCC investigation probably won’t let it settle down for awhile, which may just be perfect for Jackson and her record sales. New album coming out soon, from what I heard.
More sign’s that the Inmates (sorry, Patients) are in charge of the http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/384695|top|02-11-2004::13:47|reuters.html “target=”new”>Asylum.
I like these bits.
But lawmakers also heard that federal power to enforce decency standards on subscription cable and satellite service was limited compared to material on the public broadcast airwaves.
”is seems interesting that we say … if it’s on just a higher channel number, which you can get just by clicking your channel changer, we’re going to ignore it and not pay attention to it,” Sen. John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, said.
“We ought to look at the whole spectrum of what we get over our televisions,” he said.
Hey, it’s an election year. “Indecency” is always good for an electoral laugh.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain urged cable and satellite companies to offer parents the ability to pick and choose what channels they get so they can protect their children from violence, sex and profanity, an idea that resonated with other lawmakers and regulators.
Well Comcast already does that. So did AT&T before them.
Of course, that wouldn’t do anything for the Superbowl, since most folks would have figured …
… well, what would they have figured? I mean, the SB Halftime hasn’t had flashing boobs before, but it’s hardly been the Osmond Bros., either.
Regulation, of course, is goofy. How will CBS or Viacom keep the Janet and Justin Show from being repeated, esp. if they think that being on tape-delay will make them “safe”? Simple. If they really are opposed to such shenanigans, they’ll say, “You do something we have to bleep, and your banished from our channel for five years. Period.”
And, along with that, the public, if they are really torqued by something like this, shouldn’t be writing CBS. They should be writing the advertisers. “I will bear in mind the nature of the show that you sponsored through your commerical time next time I’m in the market for X.”
But, like I said, it’s an election year. Demogogues ‘R’ Us.