Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl

Feb 2, 2004 10:36AM PST

Contrived or Accidental? I believe contrived. I think Michael's been getting so much press Janet got jealous and wanted some for herself. Next year for halftime I hope they go all the other way with something more wholesome, like honoring the kids of 4-H across the country and having their project animals on parade, some kids giving cute short essays about raising their pets. All of it backed up by small town Americana and seldom seen talent given national coverage. Sort of a "Getting Back in Touch with America" theme.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
That would go over like a lead football would for the game. nt
Feb 2, 2004 10:45AM PST
- Collapse -
When I saw what they had lined up for halftime...
Feb 2, 2004 10:58AM PST

...they lost me anyway. I left it on with sound turned down in background and did a few chores.

- Collapse -
Re: Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl -- she now says semi-planned
Feb 2, 2004 12:13PM PST
Jackson apologizes for Super Bowl exposure.
>> "The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final rehearsals," Jackson said in a statement. "MTV was completely unaware of it. It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologize to anyone offended -- including the audience, MTV, CBS and the NFL." <<
She went on to say that only her bra was supposed to have been exposed, which may explain timberlake's comment that the exposure was "due to a costume equipment malfunction."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
Re:Re: Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl -- she now says semi-planned
Feb 2, 2004 12:50PM PST

Well maybe so, still deliberately planning an action of ripping clothes off to show underwear at halftime show of superbowl is still really pushing it IMO.

"..."was a malfunction of the wardrobe; it was not intentional. ... He was supposed to pull away the bustier and leave the red-lace bra."

But her contention that "The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final rehearsals," Jackson said in a statement." is made doubtful by "MTV posted this tease on its Web site last week: "Janet Jackson's Super Bowl show promises shocking moments." "

Seems a bit of forewarning there doesn't it? now maybe the bra was suppose to stay, but she's claiming even that was after last rehearsal decision. So what is MTV announcing will be shocking?

However I do find the notion of fineing all the CBS owned local stations a bit overboard "Powell said MTV and the CBS network's more than 200 affiliates and company-owned stations could be fined $27,500 apiece. "

No matter who knew or planned what, I'm sure the local managers approval wasn't asked for.

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl -- she now says semi-planned
Feb 2, 2004 6:31PM PST
"...was a malfunction of the wardrobe; it was not intentional. ... He was supposed to pull away the bustier and leave the red-lace bra."

What "red-lace bra"? I didn't see one. All you need to know about this is that Janet Jackson, who has in the past shown no inclination to avoid going for shock value whenever possible, has a new CD coming out and is going out on tour in support of it. Nothing like a little buzz to hype sales, eh?

Of course, the NFL's protestations that it knew nothing about this and was shocked - shocked! at what happened ring hollow - unless they hired MTV to put on the halftime show with no thought as to what might happen. If that's true, then Paul Tagliabue really does need to get some better researchers hired before he plans next year's Super Bowl. Hey, Paul: You hired MTV to do this. You had to know that you weren't getting, say, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir here.

Too bad we're talking about this. After all, what I actually wanted to see - the Super Bowl - was a helluva game, courtesy of the people who mattered: the Carolina Panthers and the New England Patriots!
- Collapse -
Well said, Paul - except
Feb 2, 2004 9:05PM PST
was a helluva game, courtesy of the people who mattered: the Carolina Panthers and the New England Patriots! - as I haven't a clue who they are.

Was it football, baseball, or jungle wars?

Ian
- Collapse -
Jungle wars?
Feb 3, 2004 12:34AM PST

Your reference to baseball is odd, but what do you mean by jungle wars?

- Collapse -
Re:Jungle wars?
Feb 3, 2004 12:47AM PST

I think you could classify "Jungle Wars" as politics.

- Collapse -
(NT)Super Bowl, american football national championship
Feb 3, 2004 1:03AM PST

.

- Collapse -
So, it's normal for her to wear a nipple ring and that metal 'pasty'?
Feb 3, 2004 12:30AM PST

She must have a high tolerance for pain, and a very active sex life.

- Collapse -
nt) lucky her :-)
Feb 3, 2004 11:10AM PST

.

- Collapse -
People get turned on by that "pasty"?
Feb 3, 2004 11:31AM PST

When I read the Drudge Report and saw the picture, it made me cringe in disgust. I would be horrified if my wife wanted something like that, certainly not excited about it. I guess piercing isn't really new, people used to put plates in thier lips and earlobes and bones through their noses. Looks like we're headed back that way again. Seems we called them savages and primitives then.

- Collapse -
Re: People get turned on by that
Feb 3, 2004 12:30PM PST

Hi, James.

Actually, nipple piercing was fairly common one time before in recent history, at a time most folks now wouldn't at all believe -- in Victorian England! BTW, my feelings about piercings pretty much mirror your own.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
NT - It's a large world, James.
Feb 4, 2004 12:14AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Hey, once again I see we have a subject...
Feb 3, 2004 11:41AM PST

...and very few comments by women on it, although I see in Charlie's "boob" thread Andrea and Angeline have contributed a few posts. There's a social statement in that statistic I think.

- Collapse -
Not sure I see any real significance there
Feb 3, 2004 12:26PM PST

It's pretty much the reflection of normal interaction of such topics isn't it? Males talking about female body parts probably doesn't draw a lot of interest (other than disapproval) from the women.

Besides, bet most women if commented would be commented on the male fascination with the breast and flashy stuff.

And probably not very complimentary to us men either. Wink

- Collapse -
For my part ....
Feb 4, 2004 11:46AM PST

... it's a matter of disbelief at some of the rationalizations put forth by SOME (and no, not you Roger your comments have been very good) of the men in that thread.

Charlie and Ian, get real about this God's creation nonsense. And it has nothing to do with breastfeeding or even nudity. It has nothing to do with sexualizing of nudity even, although admittedly our society is more uptight than Europe. Sorry DK, that has nothing to do with rape. It's legal to have sex with 13 y.o.'s in Belgium so .... Bare breast schmare breast, who cares.

Janet Jackson was once a talented and cute young lady. She is now just trying to get some buzz to boost record sales as her career has long faded. What kind of message does just THAT part send to young girls? That the only thing left is to exploit your body for money and attention? That the only way to still be "in" is to let a man at least a decade younger rip your bra off?

The show was a blatant display of raunchy sexuality. Dominatrix style outfit and wholly inappropriate. Parents who don't mind their kids seeing this get cable and allow them to watch MTV. Those who are JUSTLY outraged are the ones who thought that the Superbowl on network TV was a pretty safe bet for family viewing. Screw having meaningful discussions (that's what planned family viewing of shows touted to deal with controversial/important issues are for), this is supposed to be a game! Forget that you can't be there 24/7, we know that Dan. The point is does that mean you shouldn't at least try to shape what your young children are exposed to?

I doubt it will lead to lasting trauma, but that's so not the point. Like it or not, celebrities and their actions do serve as role models and behavior models for society. What message does "it was no big deal" send? That it's OK I suppose to do that? It sure goes beyond Janet, she is minor, how about Brittany, and that stupid Madonna kiss and jsut about everything she does. Is that a good message? Transforming to an adult means becoming an exhibitionist **** bimbo?? The only way to save an ailing career is to push the boundary even further?

It all makes me ill. It makes me sick to see these supposedly "liberated" young ladies dressing like whores and acting like nymphos to get some guy's attention. Progress??

Sigh Sad

- Collapse -
Re:Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl -- investigation being widened?
Feb 3, 2004 12:33PM PST

Hi, James.

The Censor-in-chief (aka the Chief Commissionaer of the FCC) now wants to expand the investigation to determine if other halftime acts were also "indecent." I must say that I find this new move towards government censorship of broadcast content to be very troubling in terms of the First Amendment. The old rules were maintaioned by the braodcast media themselves...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl -- investigation being widened?
Feb 3, 2004 1:58PM PST

Perhaps troubling, but regarding -

The old rules were maintaioned by the braodcast media themselves...

Maybe part of reason government moving in is feeling that media is not maintaining them, not as the public feels should at least.

That said, the idea of thousand of dollars in fines to local stations owned by Viacom seems wrong. They had no sayso in what would be aired. And since Janet claims noone but she and Justin knew about it in advance (although I have my reservations about that) any fines should be levied at them.

Remembered after Martin what's his name used such foul language on the Sat night live monologue they put the first delay in there so they could bleep in the future? Guess everything live now will have to have that second delay for a censor, since the performers doing unauthorized adlibbing will get the networks fined excessively.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl -- investigation being widened?
Feb 3, 2004 5:23PM PST

Well, your going to get a womans comment on it now. I think it was planned. I have no doubt about it. Being a lady that has worn a bra for many years there is no way that one side of a bra would have "accidentally" ripped off. Not to mention that Justins first comments about it, and Ican't remember exactly what he said right now, but he obviously wasn't suprised. Only after the heat started did the suprise element come up.

I also think it's disgusting! That they not only should be banned from the upcoming awards show, but they should be banned from all television!

I think if it takes the goverment to step in and govern that kind of thing then so be it. The media aparently dose'nt give a darn as what they allow on tv almost daily gets more and more risque or/and violent.

I do think its going to far to fine individual stations because you can pretty much bet they had no idea what was going to happen. However, if there is a good price to pay then maybe there will be a better effort put forward to stop such a thing in the future.

So now you have the opinion of a woman.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Re:Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl -- investigation being widened?
Feb 4, 2004 4:34AM PST

If sex acts for dollars equal prostitution then what was done is generally illegal in this country. I think we give the entertsinment pimps and their "girls" too much attention thus encouraging behaviour which belongs in the red light districts of the world and not in a public medium such as TV.

The exploitation of female sexuality has reached such proportions that it wouldnt surprise me at all if we soon found ourselves back in the hypocritical quagmire of the 19th century...a trend which seems to have already begun in the minds of more than a few. Ignoring
these happenings and refusing to "buy" the products they are intended to sell IMHO is a much better approach to the problem.

- Collapse -
Re: Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl -- investigation being widened?
Feb 4, 2004 12:00PM PST

Hi, Roger.

>>Guess everything live now will have to have that second delay for a censor, since the performers doing unauthorized adlibbing will get the networks fined excessively.<<
CBS has announced it will have a five minute delay at the Grammy's. This incident is bringing censorship back rapidly. Much as I deplore the incident, the reaction is worse, IMCO. We don't need big government telling us what we can and can't watch, anymore than we should be happy that CBS allows explicit impotence cure commercials while forbidding anti-Bush ads as "inappropriate."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re hence forth the super bowl shall be called the super cup. :-) (nt)
Feb 4, 2004 5:00AM PST

.

- Collapse -
LOL, that's a good one!
Feb 4, 2004 8:13AM PST

;^)