I feel torn making remarks about the Super Bowl halftime show because any additional commentary only gives Janet Jackson what she wanted, which is more publicity. Personally, I do not find baring a breast on national TV for a couple of seconds to be disgusting, stimulating, entertaining, or even mildly interesting. The emotion I feel is sadness--that a performer had to resort to a stunt like this to call attention to herself. I would have ignored the whole thing, which is the proper response to the publicity hound, were it not for the reaction to the reaction.
The initial protests came from religious groups, conservative organizations, and members of Congress. We had to suffer through the predictable declarations of outrage, then the insincere apologies and other acts of contrition from CBS executives, partner-in-crime Justin Timberlake, and Ms. Jackson herself. But I was most offended by the mocking tone directed by some commentators toward the people who were offended: Such prudes to be offended by a woman’s breast! Worried about your kids watching? Turn off the TV!
Plausible responses could be: I couldn’t get to the remote control in time; I was at a friend’s house and he would look like a fool turning off the TV with ten adults and only four kids present; when would I know when the shenanigans stopped and it was safe to switch on the TV for the second half? By the way, is it okay for my son to emulate Justin Timberlake by ripping off part of your daughter’s blouse?
The TV audience wasn’t warned, and some people were forced to view something that they would not have chosen for themselves or their children to look at. If Janet Jackson’s actions are not wrong, then there is no justification for prosecuting the sick flasher who hangs around the schoolyard. You heard it here first: for indecent exposure cases look for the "Janet Jackson defense." © 2004 Stephen Yuen
No comments:
Post a Comment