FCC's "Wardrobe Malfunction" fine against CBS dropped by court

[djj]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_en_tv/cbs_janet_jackson;_ylt=AkoEkaHSw__AxH4rxREhPTes0NUE

In the above story, it mentions "The 90 million people watching the Super Bowl, many of them children, heard Justin Timberlake sing, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song," as he reached for Jackson's bustier."...

Note in that same A.P. story above the line from Andrew Schwartzman:
...the ruling "is an important advance for preserving creative freedom on the air."

"Gonna have you naked by the end of this song".....creative.....
ohhhhh-kay....
--jay

 

[Nate Wesley]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_en_tv/cbs_janet_jackson;_ylt=AkoEkaHSw__AxH4rxREhPTes0NUE

In the above story, it mentions "The 90 million people watching the Super Bowl, many of them children, heard Justin Timberlake sing, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song," as he reached for Jackson's bustier."...

Note in that same A.P. story above the line from Andrew Schwartzman:
...the ruling "is an important advance for preserving creative freedom on the air."

"Gonna have you naked by the end of this song".....creative.....
ohhhhh-kay....
--jay

You are aware that's a closing lyric from Timberlake's "Rock Your Body", right?

In any event, I think this is a good ruling. The FCC basically made up the basis for its fine as it went along, and got away with it because of the "Do Something!" crowd. It will hopefully establish precedent that broadcasters won't be held responsible for fleeting items (swears, nudity) that they have no direct control over. Mistakes are bound to be made, and this mistake surely wasn't because of something CBS did.

 

[kyscott]

responsible for fleeting items (swears, nudity) that they have no direct control over. Mistakes are bound to be made, and this mistake surely wasn't because of something CBS did.

This wasn't a mistake. A mistake is her bustier coming off while she's dancing. A mistake is not someone reaching up and taking it off. The FCC might as well shut down the enforcement bureau if the courts are gonna over rule them.

 

[scottythecynic]

The FCC is out of touch with the public it is supposed to serve anyway.

The ruling is a good one.

"Wardrobe malfunctions" are not uncommon in show biz. That the event occured on live TV was misfortune, and maybe it wasn't an accident. I don't claim to know the hearts and intents of the two involved.

I side with the court on this.

By the way, the FCC needs restructuring at least.

 

[JayR]

FCC...

The FCC is out of touch with the public it is supposed to serve anyway.

The ruling is a good one.

"Wardrobe malfunctions" are not uncommon in show biz. That the event occurred on live TV was misfortune, and maybe it wasn't an accident. I don't claim to know the hearts and intents of the two involved.

I side with the court on this.

By the way, the FCC needs restructuring at least.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Nate Wesley]

This wasn't a mistake. A mistake is her bustier coming off while she's dancing. A mistake is not someone reaching up and taking it off. The FCC might as well shut down the enforcement bureau if the courts are gonna over rule them.

I chose to refer to it as a 'mistake' as it's never been clearly established that what happened was intentional (stop laughing). In any case, I'm pretty sure Justin Timberlake or Janet Jackson both privately wish they'd have thought of something different.

As far as the courts overruling the FCC, they can't just pass any law or assess any fine. CBS contested and the court obviously found something off with this fined incident.

 

[Markxxx]

I think the newtorks wanted this just so they could say "it's not my fault." I do think they should be held responsible for REAL violations.

The thing to me is no one ever really decided was this an accident or was the production company trying to get away with something.

If it was an accident, no fine. If they were pushing the envelope they should be fined.

I mean all this could be prevented by having the networks run live programs on 10 second delays.

It seems now the network can simply say "I didn't know." Or the performer can say "It slipped out."

I'm not a prude, I feel there is a place for bad words, nudity and violence, but that is the key, A PLACE. If I'm watching PBS's Arthur I shouldn't have to expect a cartoon would say a cuss word.

If I'm watching a sports show I shouldn't expect to see naked people, if I'm watching an adult themed drama at 10pm, well then yeah that's OK, cause it'd be expected.

 

[YEKIMI]

All I know is that once I saw Janet's 40 year old boobie I had to bleach out my eyes and couldn't eat for a month.

 

[jcs]

I can't believe everybody is siding with CBS on the issue! How can you be against the FCC guarding us from profane material? CBS was ARROGANT to contest the fine (which should have been about 50% of its net worth IMHO) and should have just paid it and given the Parents Television Council oversight, if not ownership, of the network!

 

[rickradio]

I can't believe everybody is siding with CBS on the issue! How can you be against the FCC guarding us from profane material? CBS was ARROGANT to contest the fine (which should have been about 50% of its net worth IMHO) and should have just paid it and given the Parents Television Council oversight, if not ownership, of the network!

Uh, you are joking...I hope?

 

[mleach]

About this "wardrobe malfunction", I have to wonder had TVIO and the gadgets like that weren't around when this took place would anyone even notice?

Back in the late 80's I remember watching a newscast from Denver's KUSA. Some reporter was doing a live report someplace only to have a car pull up within camera range, behind the reporter and out came a totally nude man !! That scene lasted only a few seconds but still the next day..nothing. No one said a word !! No jokes..nothing in the papers...nothing !!

Also I seem to recall reading in some trivia book years ago where George Burns appeared live on TV back in the early 50's, not only was his zipper down but his you-know-what popped out !! I never did hear of there was an uproar over that or not ( if it did happen at all ). I doubt there was.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

What has happened in our nation is that, in previous generations, most of the people had similar values (which generally matched the 10 Commandments) even if the people were not religious at all. That society held that certain language and actions (bare boobs, etc) were not for public consumption. We didn't have the "anything goes, or if it feels good do it" mentality that has become the norm today. People also had an attitude of being considerate of the other person. Our society then had an attitude generally to think how your actions might aversely affect someone else. Our society has changed and now the majority has no problem with those things being shown or spoken of in public or for consumption by the public in the media. It seems that most folks today don't care how their actions or words might adversely affect others even children. So people like me, who were in the majority then are now in the minority today.

It appears to me, and others, that our nation has entered a new "dark age" where vulgarity, ignorance, (yes even illiteracy is increasing too), and a "I don't give a rip about the other person" is exulted today, and righteousness and living your life where you try to be considerate of the other person is laughed at or seen as passe. At some point we, as a society, will have to pay the piper. So YES, my opinion is the court was in error with their decision on the CBS/ Janet Jackson wardrobe "malfunction" Super Bowl Show.

 

[Nate Wesley]

What has happened in our nation is that, in previous generations, most of the people had similar values (which generally matched the 10 Commandments) even if the people were not religious at all. That society held that certain language and actions (bare boobs, etc) were not for public consumption. We didn't have the "anything goes, or if it feels good do it" mentality that has become the norm today. People also had an attitude of being considerate of the other person. Our society then had an attitude generally to think how your actions might aversely affect someone else. Our society has changed and now the majority has no problem with those things being shown or spoken of in public or for consumption by the public in the media. It seems that most folks today don't care how their actions or words might adversely affect others even children. So people like me, who were in the majority then are now in the minority today.

It appears to me, and others, that our nation has entered a new "dark age" where vulgarity, ignorance, (yes even illiteracy is increasing too), and a "I don't give a rip about the other person" is exulted today, and righteousness and living your life where you try to be considerate of the other person is laughed at or seen as passe. At some point we, as a society, will have to pay the piper. So YES, my opinion is the court was in error with their decision on the CBS/ Janet Jackson wardrobe "malfunction" Super Bowl Show.

Our society will always experience shifting priorities in what is considered decent and moral. Our society does the amazing feat of lowering the bar and yet raising its overall social intelligence. In other words, you do have folks who are getting lazier in the brain, while others are becoming more sophisticated. Fewer taboos, fewer needs to shield and shun.

I laugh when I hear adults complain "What will I tell my kids when they see ________ on television/while walking down the street/in the canned food aisle at the Piggly Wiggly?" We're so afraid or uptight about certain parts of the big bad world out there, we've can't even be honest anymore. What's wrong with the truth, discussed intelligently and in a way they can handle?

Opining for 'the good old days' isn't the appropriate response, IMO.

 

[imhomerjay]

What has happened in our nation is that, in previous generations, most of the people had similar values (which generally matched the 10 Commandments) even if the people were not religious at all. That society held that certain language and actions (bare boobs, etc) were not for public consumption. We didn't have the "anything goes, or if it feels good do it" mentality that has become the norm today. People also had an attitude of being considerate of the other person. Our society then had an attitude generally to think how your actions might aversely affect someone else. Our society has changed and now the majority has no problem with those things being shown or spoken of in public or for consumption by the public in the media. It seems that most folks today don't care how their actions or words might adversely affect others even children. So people like me, who were in the majority then are now in the minority today.

It appears to me, and others, that our nation has entered a new "dark age" where vulgarity, ignorance, (yes even illiteracy is increasing too), and a "I don't give a rip about the other person" is exulted today, and righteousness and living your life where you try to be considerate of the other person is laughed at or seen as passe. At some point we, as a society, will have to pay the piper. So YES, my opinion is the court was in error with their decision on the CBS/ Janet Jackson wardrobe "malfunction" Super Bowl Show.

A new dark age. Maybe, maybe not. But let’s not get all rose-colored-glasses about history, when “most of the people had similar values” (a dubious proposition at best).

Lest we forget, there have been many a blemish on this country’s record. You know, things like minorities having separate lunch counters or being told to move to the back of the bus. Things like rounding up American citizens and locking them in prison camps…oh, wait, relocation centers…because they looked like other people who had done us harm. Things like struggles for women to achieve equal rights. Things like racist governors trying to block educational integration. Things like domestic abuse and sexual crimes being woefully underreported and swept under the rug. Things like girls who found themselves pregnant being shipped away to spare their parents the stigma of an unplanned pregnancy (or worse outcomes).

This country continues to have some bizarre puritanical hang-ups about sex and the human body (never mind that a breast is not a sexual organ…that’s too difficult a concept for some people to get their heads around—just look at the obstacles many women face when trying to breastfeed their children).

We’re not talking about hardcore porn on TV here. We’re talking about a fleeting moment of live television which, all conjecture and speculation aside, has not been proven (a key concept) to have been intentional.

We do not all need to walk around on eggshells because some among us are so sensitive that lip-reading Tiger Woods using colorful language when a shot goes awry scars our psyche or that a split-second image of a human nipple is some kind of violation of the Ten Commandments (I checked and don’t see anything in there about wardrobe malfunctions).

No one forces any of us to consume media. Technology has made it possible for any of us to exclude most things we find objectionable from our TVs if we just choose to avail ourselves of those tools. Yes, the occasional nipple may be seen, but guess what, when you’re at the beach or pool, someone can lose a swimsuit inadvertently as well—should we fine the local swimming club for not having a cabaret license if a woman’s breast became briefly exposed? Life is not without some risk of the occasional glimpse of flesh—but we need not turn them all into, quite literally in this instance, a federal case.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

I never said the past was perfect, far from it. I believe the big issue with this Janet Jackson episode is that this program is billed as a family "G" rated event. So one would NOT expect to see Justin Timberlake reach up and open up her bra front (they may not be able to prove in a court of law it was done on purpose, but what I saw didn't seem like an accident). In a "G" rated show, he should not have had his hands on her breasts to start with. Also the words to the song were not appropriate for family viewing. If you're going to rate a show as a "G" event then make it a "G" event. Sure folks with more "adult" tastes would find the show a bit boring, but at least the show would have been what it advertised itself to be.

I believe Ms. Jackson knew exactly what she was doing. If I remember correctly, she had a new CD coming out shortly after that Super Bowl. You know the ole expression to the folks in Hollywood, no publicity is bad publicity. My guess is her Super Bowl antics at the end of the show did more to sell her CD's than did her singing.

If the program had been billed for adult viewing or mature viewing, etc, then there should have not been a problem, but that wasn't the case. A parent has the right to be able to decide what his child gets to view on TV, but part of that judgement comes from how the show is rated. If you can't trust the rating, then essentially a parent would end up either compromising their values (which is possibly what Hollywood is shooting for as they love to push the envelope and their very permissive agenda), or that parent would be forced to unplug the TV and set it on the curb for the trash collector to pick up as they'd not be able to have any belief that even a children's show would be appropriate for their child.

Lastly, as accidents do sometimes happen with a live broadcast ( I don't believe that is the case in the Jackson/Timberlake event) having a 10 second delay would have eliminated the problem.

 

[mleach]

I never said the past was perfect, far from it. I believe the big issue with this Janet Jackson episode is that this program is billed as a family "G" rated event. So one would NOT expect to see Justin Timberlake reach up and open up her bra front (they may not be able to prove in a court of law it was done on purpose, but what I saw didn't seem like an accident). In a "G" rated show, he should not have had his hands on her breasts to start with. Also the words to the song were not appropriate for family viewing. If you're going to rate a show as a "G" event then make it a "G" event. Sure folks with more "adult" tastes would find the show a bit boring, but at least the show would have been what it advertised itself to be.

I believe Ms. Jackson knew exactly what she was doing. If I remember correctly, she had a new CD coming out shortly after that Super Bowl. You know the ole expression to the folks in Hollywood, no publicity is bad publicity. My guess is her Super Bowl antics at the end of the show did more to sell her CD's than did her singing.

If the program had been billed for adult viewing or mature viewing, etc, then there should have not been a problem, but that wasn't the case. A parent has the right to be able to decide what his child gets to view on TV, but part of that judgement comes from how the show is rated. If you can't trust the rating, then essentially a parent would end up either compromising their values (which is possibly what Hollywood is shooting for as they love to push the envelope and their very permissive agenda), or that parent would be forced to unplug the TV and set it on the curb for the trash collector to pick up as they'd not be able to have any belief that even a children's show would be appropriate for their child.

Lastly, as accidents do sometimes happen with a live broadcast ( I don't believe that is the case in the Jackson/Timberlake event) having a 10 second delay would have eliminated the problem.

Was the Superbowl rated "TVG"? I have always heard that any show that is done live isn't rated at all like newscasts for example.

About those ratings...maybe it has since changed but I remember when they first came out where that any show that feaured rock music would get a TV-PG right off the bat while country music shows would get a TVG. Considering that some country lyrics and videos have as much sex and stuff in them as their rock counterparts, I never quite understood that bit of logic.

 

[KML0224]

Sporting events don't receive a TV rating. Newscasts are also exempt from that rule.

 

[mleach]

Newscasts are also exempt from that rule.

I have often wondered why newscasts are NOT rated?

Over the years my wife and I have seen on local TV newscasts..........

*a special report on hookers hanging around truckstops.

*a report done from the inside of an adult book store with lots of clear shots of all the sex toys.

*My wife went out of town on business when she saw a news report on "gay bears and cubs". One scene she remembers watching featured a middle aged hairy overweight gay man at a bar pouring beer over his chest only to have his 20 something lover "cub" lick the beer off his chest while he calls him "..my daddy !!" I would much have rather seen Janet's boob than this !!!!!

*I remember seeing on Baltimore's WMAR channel 2 a news report on Fred Phelps. WMAR didn't censor the sign this "pastor" was holding.
A drawing of 2 men having anal sex with the words " God hates f*gs !!"

*a report on teenage sex. Ok that is an important topic but did the reporter have to expain to viewers some of the sexual positions teens do when they have sex? That is almost as bad as the local radio last year in my hometown who did an interview of a young man who WANTED to get HIV !!

Now all of these reports were planned to be a part of the news. They weren't unexpected.

And yet..newscasts aren't rated for content.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Based on what you're saying, I haven't missed much of anything "news worthy", as I haven't watched a commercial TV newscast, local or national in a few years. I generally listen to the radio for news and the newspapers both local and online for other papers, but when I do watch a TV newscast, for local I'll watch our local PBS station's "Delaware Tonight" newscast and Jim Leher Newshour for the national news. I do check out Fox News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC sometimes as well.

Based on what you're saying, it would appear that the newscasts should be rated, as they are not the family friendly newscasts I remember. My guess is Edward R. Murrow would not be impressed with the state of TV news today. I don't believe he considered the news to be a "show" going for the biggest ratings, etc.

As far as the Super Bowl is concerned, if I recall correctly, I believe I remember reading somewhere, that the Super Bowl (the TV end of it) discovered that women do watch and as they are the most desired demo, they were trying to make the "game/show" more family friendly. So it may not have been given a rating, but the TV part of the Super Bowl apparently decided it wanted to make the game appeal to women as well as men. I also seem to remember ads promoting the Super Bowl that year implying it to be an event for the entire family, but it's been a few years ago and I may not be remembering this correctly.

My guess is, that most women, especially those with children would not want their kids seeing Janet Jackson's breast or anyone elses breast or private parts being shown, or having their kids hearing the sexual language of the words to the music being sung. Actually, I know of a large number of families, who do watch the Super Bowl game, but would turn off the TV during the half time shows, because of the sleezy nature of the shows. Actually, my family and friends were at a Super Bowl party that year and in fact had turned off the TV during the halftime show and actually didn't see the Jackson breast baring live (we saw it later on the Drudge Report). After the Jackson/Timberlake event, the half time shows eliminated the sleeze and had some great performers like Paul McCartney and Mick Jaggar and the Rolling Stones. Both put on a great show that was family friendly. So it can be done and done well. Now many of those families do I mentioned earlier do watch the half time shows and will if they continue to be of that type of quality.

Another point on this, the Super Bowl is now an international show. Somehow, I think it degrades our nation to have a show like what Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake did represent our nation shown around the world. You might not agree, but I'm not alone in that feeling at all.

Yes, Country Music is an interesting study in hypocracy. A Country artist on one song will be singing about the Lord and then the second song on his/her album will be a let's go and get drunk at the local honkytonk and then go and do adult things later song.

So I understand your point, but that still doesn't mean that a national (international) televised event should become some sleezefest. Sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. My family is one of those families I mentioned. So if the Super Bowl goes back to showing the sleezefest halftime shows of Jackson and other previous shows, we'll just go back to tuning out the half time show again. That will lose millions of viewers that the sponsor doesn't want tuning out. My guess is, the half time show will continue to be more of a family event, there's just too much money involved. You may not mind the sleeze, but that primary demo (women with children) will mind it and tune out if the sleeze returns.

 

[imhomerjay]

A few minutes of parental research should give parents an idea of whether they want their kids watching the performers; logic would imply Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson were not going to be up there singing Shirley Temple songs, wardrobe issues aside. Even not knowing which songs were slated to be on the set list, that there was a possibility of something risqué should not have been a surprise.



The “blame Hollywood” mantra is flawed as well. We, collectively, are responsible for what we see. Hollywood follows the money trail. If we didn’t buy the CDs, if we didn’t tune in to the shows, if we didn’t go to the movies, guess what would happen? If G-rated films raked in hundreds of millions of dollars consistently, do you really think we wouldn’t be seeing more of them? Do some people have specific agendas? No doubt. But the layers and layers of filters help ensure that agendas are secondary to what sells. It’s not unlike politics—people decry negative advertising…but time and time again, the results show the tactics work.



Family entertainment hasn’t died, though some of it has moved. There are plenty of generally age-appropriate choices if parents just use the tools available to them. Maybe some of those choices are on DVDs, some on specific cable channels at certain times (that’s what DVRs are for), etc.