Report: CBS May Can Janet, Justin From Grammys

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DOSfan

As some might have guessed by now, I did not actually see the Half Time show. I had no interest, or reason, to watch the superbowl or the half time show.

As well, I admitted that the point of the "rape" scene completely shot my "just relax" position out of the water.

But for "this has always been a family event," I have to disagree. At least by the way you define family event.

Hooters Restaraunt's can call themselves a "family restaraunt." I can not see how. I personally do not see an inherent problem with taking "under-teen" or even teen kids to the restaraunt, but I do not see how they company can get away with calling it a family restaraunt.

The same goes for the Superbowl - particularly the commercials and Half Time Show. How can all of that be deemed "family oriented?"

The violence in the game, not to mention the "attitude" and "smack talk." At least wrestling can claim that it is "all for entertainment." Football can not.

And the commercials.... More beer than you can wave an empty bottle at. And the scantily clad women.....

And the show... 'Nuff said.

I will repeat for those that might have missed it: I have no problem with this.

I do have a problem with those that claim "it is a family event" and when a breast is shown have a tizzy.

Now Wingznut, you do have my support on the way the scene was shown. I did not realize that point. But you can not preach that the event is "family oriented" and claim foul at the shot of a - as I said before - "decorated" breast.

I guess we need to ban children under the age of 18 from attending NFL games in person and TV broadcasts should be prefaced with "Warning: graphic content...parental guidance suggested"

Football is not about violence. It's about competition and sportmanship. Sure, there are some roughnecks and bad apples out there but kids in the stadiums and at home don't hear the smack talk. They hear it more at NBA games, imo, but that's another story.

The NFL actively supports youth football (there's a link to various youth programs right on their main page.)

Wrestling, otoh, with chairs over heads, pile drivers, cage matches, etc. is all about glorified violence.

 

[MikeDub83]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mill
He had her consent.

But to the eyes of a 9 year-old girl (or boy), he didn't.

How?

Because children do not know or understand consent. A reason we have statutory rape laws. Besides, if you watch closely Janet has a suprised look when her cup is removed. Common sense would say, if someone was suprised something happened, than they did not have a preconcieved notion of what was going to happen, and therefore couldn't have given consent. Of course we all know it was an act and she knew it was going to happen all along, but kids don't understand that.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Mill
He had her consent. It was staged to where her red bustier was supposed to be revealed and not her actual breast. There are too many articles out there that say it was "staged" and it WAS, but most neglect to include to rest of Jackson's Publicist's statement that said it was a malfunction and that only the red bustier was supposed to be showed. I'm sure no one believes that, but I have a hard time believing that Timberlake and Jackson are that stupid. Dancers from the show called in to Houston radio stations that night and the next day and said that Jackson and Timberlake were both upset, because that was not supposed to happen that way. People are taking Timberlakes's statements to Access Hollywood as proof that he wanted to flash her tit. I'm not saying one way or the other. He could have meant to do that, but I'll wait for the investigation. Either way I am not outraged because it was 2 seconds of a show that lasted quite awhile. I see the FCC is objecting to the whole show, but I doubt they would of had it not been for the incident.

If I were a parent I'd have enough faith in my parenting to know that my kids were not going to become rapists because of something they saw on the Super Bowl halftime compared to movies and TV shows that they watch everyday. America and the media are sensationalists and reactionary and this is just more proof. The idea that a tit shot will undermine the American Family and turn little kids into rapists is just asinine.

Mill, is this generally your MO... Take something out of context and then overdramatize it?

Nobody has said that a split second of boobie is going to "turn little kids into rapists". What we are saying is that they took the ability to choose (what to allow little kids to view) away from the parents. And they did it for 100% selfish reasons... To promote themselves.

And of course proper parenting will overshadow any stupid little stunt such as this... But again, that is not the point.


DOSfan, I'm not going to get into a debate as to what is and what isn't appropriate for children to watch. But the Super Bowl is most definitely a family event. And showing nudity was wholly inappropriate for such a venue.

And again... This isn't really the point. The point is that it wasn't made clear what was about to happen and there was no reason to expect such an event. Us parents were blindsided by the performers egotistical need to upstage the other guy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Based on their performance at the Half Time show they should be pulled because they suck, not because of a cheap publicity stunt! But then again the music being honored at the grammy's mostly sucks so maybe they would be perfect for the awards.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Mill
He had her consent. It was staged to where her red bustier was supposed to be revealed and not her actual breast. There are too many articles out there that say it was "staged" and it WAS, but most neglect to include to rest of Jackson's Publicist's statement that said it was a malfunction and that only the red bustier was supposed to be showed. I'm sure no one believes that, but I have a hard time believing that Timberlake and Jackson are that stupid. Dancers from the show called in to Houston radio stations that night and the next day and said that Jackson and Timberlake were both upset, because that was not supposed to happen that way. People are taking Timberlakes's statements to Access Hollywood as proof that he wanted to flash her tit. I'm not saying one way or the other. He could have meant to do that, but I'll wait for the investigation. Either way I am not outraged because it was 2 seconds of a show that lasted quite awhile. I see the FCC is objecting to the whole show, but I doubt they would of had it not been for the incident.

If I were a parent I'd have enough faith in my parenting to know that my kids were not going to become rapists because of something they saw on the Super Bowl halftime compared to movies and TV shows that they watch everyday. America and the media are sensationalists and reactionary and this is just more proof. The idea that a tit shot will undermine the American Family and turn little kids into rapists is just asinine.

Mill, is this generally your MO... Take something out of context and then overdramatize it?

Nobody has said that a split second of boobie is going to "turn little kids into rapists". What we are saying is that they took the ability to choose (what to allow little kids to view) away from the parents. And they did it for 100% selfish reasons... To promote themselves.

And of course proper parenting will overshadow any stupid little stunt such as this... But again, that is not the point.


DOSfan, I'm not going to get into a debate as to what is and what isn't appropriate for children to watch. But the Super Bowl is most definitely a family event. And showing nudity was wholly inappropriate for such a venue.

And again... This isn't really the point. The point is that it wasn't made clear what was about to happen and there was no reason to expect such an event. Us parents were blindsided by the performers egotistical need to upstage the other guy.

I'm only overdramatizing as much as the rest of you are. People are taking this thing WAY WAY WAY too seriously.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Based on their performance at the Half Time show they should be pulled because they suck, not because of a cheap publicity stunt! But then again the music being honored at the grammy's mostly sucks so maybe they would be perfect for the awards.

Hard to argue with that.

You think any of these guys would be popular if it wasn't for Mtv and music videos? Not hardly.

And why do they all lip sync? Why not actually sing, instead of just pretending? And why do their "fans" put up with the facade? I'd be irritated if my favorite band showed up and didn't even sing.

 

[Warthog912]

[/quote] As a parent, it is indeed up to me to discuss nudity and sexuality with my children. And the discussion will come up when I think it's appropriate to discuss the issue with my kids. Not when Janet Jackson, not when network TV and not when some segments of society that feel we should mimic everything after the Europeans think it is appropriate.
[/quote]

When YOU think it's appropriate? Gimme a break. Kids go to public school? They know already. If you're gonna be like that, then you know where the power button on the tv is, cut it off.

Be responsible.

 

[Mill]

BTW, I don't think most of my comments were overly dramatic. I'm not the one who said it was rape/sexual assault and that I was afraid my kids would emulate it. To me that falls in line perfectly with my comments that people are afraid it will turn their kids into little rapists.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Warthog912
When YOU think it's appropriate? Gimme a break. Kids go to public school? They know already. If you're gonna be like that, then you know where the power button on the tv is, cut it off.

Be responsible.

That's the point, Warthog... A parent should be able to presume that a Super Bowl presentation would be free of nudity. There are plenty of parents around the nation who would've "cut off" the TV, if they'd had a notion of what was going to happen. This wasn't something that the parents CHOSE for their kids to view.

How can one "be responsible" when they are blindsided like that???

Again, I'm trying not to blow it out of proportion... In the grand scheme of things, a split-second boob shot (even in the poor context in which it was revealed) isn't going to scar anyone.

But to take the choice (of what's appropriate for their children) away from the parents is irresponsible and arrogant.

 

[Mill]

But to take the choice (of what's appropriate for their children) away from the parents is irresponsible and arrogant.

Advertising, TV, and the internet already do that.

 

[spliffstar69]

[/quote] I'm only overdramatizing as much as the rest of you are. People are taking this thing WAY WAY WAY too seriously.[/quote]

Thats the Truth, Im trying to get my next dollar and stay alive.

All I have to say is this set the bar so in the furture expect something else to catch us by surprise
Male-Male Action maybe? LoL

 

[DanTMWTMP]

anyways, i think CBS should be BANNED FROM EVER SHOWING THE SUPERBOWL AGAIN...they had wayy too many technical difficulties, they showed way too much of their own network commercials....

cbs is just lame overall..the network is lame.

their last olympics coverage was lame (i think the nagano winter olympics)

CBS sucks no matter what.

 

[Ryan]

I can say that I am very dissapointed by even the consideration of this idea. The grammy's have given Mrs. Jackson so much praise in the past for her talent, for such a miniscule event as the superbowl incident to eclipse all of her past accomplishements bothers me.

 

[Warthog912]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Warthog912
When YOU think it's appropriate? Gimme a break. Kids go to public school? They know already. If you're gonna be like that, then you know where the power button on the tv is, cut it off.

Be responsible.

That's the point, Warthog... A parent should be able to presume that a Super Bowl presentation would be free of nudity. There are plenty of parents around the nation who would've "cut off" the TV, if they'd had a notion of what was going to happen. This wasn't something that the parents CHOSE for their kids to view.

How can one "be responsible" when they are blindsided like that???

Again, I'm trying not to blow it out of proportion... In the grand scheme of things, a split-second boob shot (even in the poor context in which it was revealed) isn't going to scar anyone.

But to take the choice (of what's appropriate for their children) away from the parents is irresponsible and arrogant.

Ya I agree with you to some extent. It's like this:

Your kids wanna go outside and play
----------You know there is a risk of them getting hurt, scraped up etc... and you let you go anyway, figuring the chance is miniscule.

EXACT same situation with Superbowl. Ya, it's rated PG or whatever, but IMO as with anything LIVE, you should not take chances. Granted, the parents didn't know it was coming. But the superbowl is always live.

So I end my post with "Be Responsible"
If there is any chance a parent would think something cheesy like this would happen again, be responsible and cut the tv off. Go play a board game with your kids, take em out or something, don't let the tv do the babysitting for you. There is always Sportscenter for the game.

Later

 

[spliffstar69]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
anyways, i think CBS should be BANNED FROM EVER SHOWING THE SUPERBOWL AGAIN...they had wayy too many technical difficulties, they showed way too much of their own network commercials....

cbs is just lame overall..the network is lame.

their last olympics coverage was lame (i think the nagano winter olympics)

CBS sucks no matter what.

I agree, when I see that eye logo I turn the Channel CBS get no air time in my place.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Based on their performance at the Half Time show they should be pulled because they suck, not because of a cheap publicity stunt! But then again the music being honored at the grammy's mostly sucks so maybe they would be perfect for the awards.

Hard to argue with that.

You think any of these guys would be popular if it wasn't for Mtv and music videos? Not hardly.

And why do they all lip sync? Why not actually sing, instead of just pretending? And why do their "fans" put up with the facade? I'd be irritated if my favorite band showed up and didn't even sing.

First, they aren't a band. The only band that played was Kid Rock they actually played their instruments and sang.

Second, they do a lot of dancing during their shows and it makes it a little difficult to do both.

I'm not a fan of the music, but you have to give them at least a little credit for the shows some of these people put on.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Based on their performance at the Half Time show they should be pulled because they suck, not because of a cheap publicity stunt! But then again the music being honored at the grammy's mostly sucks so maybe they would be perfect for the awards.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Warthog912
So I end my post with "Be Responsible"
If there is any chance a parent would think something cheesy like this would happen again, be responsible and cut the tv off. Go play a board game with your kids, take em out or something, don't let the tv do the babysitting for you. There is always Sportscenter for the game.

Ok, you can get off your soapbox now. This isn't about the TV "babysitting"... This is about watching a national tradition for almost 40 years called The Super Bowl.

 

[Murphyrulez]

What technical problems did the show have? I only noticed one tape machine die during a replay....