CBS on "controversial"
A great letter to the editor in the Boston Globe re CBS' judgment about what sort of controvesy it should keep its viewers from. The site is flakey, so here's the text:
CBS's failure in judgmentWe Americans need to rethink whether CBS and its
parent company Viacom should continue to be
trusted to broadcast on our publicly owned airwaves.First, CBS turned down an ad by MoveOn.org discussing
the budget deficit because it was too controversial
for the Super Bowl. Then it proceeded to air an
obscene halftime show produced by MTV. The show
included Nelly urging women to take off all their
clothes, and Janet Jackson performing with dancers
wearing leather fetish outfits and lingerie, and
then closing her performance by exposing her breast.
MTV's website promised on Jan. 28 that Jackson's
performance would include shocking moments, so it
is clear that this was planned.CBS deliberately suppressed and censored political
speech and public discourse, the core reason
behind the First Amendment, yet saw fit to air
sexually exploitive performances during a family
event. We cannot tolerate such failures in
judgment.Christine Bolzan, Beverly, MA
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (34)
It become obvious that the deficit does not bring in viewers (read dollars) as well as the posiblity of some skin. Easy enough to fix. Most cable systems allow you to put a parental control on a channel. Block CBS on you cable box!.
I really strongly disapprove of CBS's editorial decision but . . . doesn't this sound an awful lot like the various conservative screeds about declining morality? I think it's a really dumb idea to tie an important issue to yet another neo-puritan tempest in a teapot. The blue-noses will always find something to be outraged about and the issues are never significant - this kind of control over the political debate is far more important.
Going off on a complete tangent, the thing that struck me was that Tivo knows, not just who is using their service to get the Superbowl but who is replaying a particular part. I had thought that the user's machine saved a video onto its hard disk, which the user could then deal with. Was it known that the machine is reporting back this kind of stuff?
As far as I understand it, tivo and replaytv report all kinds of stuff, but only most of it "in aggregate." I don't know how much i buy that, though. I know the replay units report back if you've tinkered with them, and I *think* they can choose how much tinkering is ok before they cut your service off. The tivos probably do the same.
I mean, you KNOW tivo reports back all kinds of viewing profiles, because it uses those to make guesses at what you might like to watch based on other people who watch similar things as you. And they probably report back on when you watch, and therefore a time-slip at a certain point during halftime would be noticable.
Christine Bolzan's criticism of CBS based on the halftime show is a little bit misdirected. I'm not sure it's fair put all of the blame on CBS for the escapades at halftime. Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake appear to have pulled off the stunt without prior knowledge of CBS.
The real criticism should be directed at CBS's selection of commercials. Instead of moveon.org's serious commercial, CBS aired a lot of inane and downright crass commercials: one with a horse passing gas, another with a dog biting the crotch of a man, one with a kid saying "holy sh--." There were probably other bad ones, but I'd sooner forget them.
On a related note: isn't it ironic the government can order an "investigation" within less than a day of the halftime show apparently to get to the bottom of the partial breast-baring incident, but takes weeks to decide whether to even conduct an investigation of the WMD intelligence failure?
There is an article on Common Dreams that addresses this topic. It raises interesting questions about "morality" and the media, without a doubt.
As an aside, there can be little question that The Great Tit Stunt was planned, and that at least someone at CBS/MTV knew about it in advance. The lights went out almost instantly, and the camera cut away before anyone would have had a chance to react and make a decision to do so.
what's most depressing is the low rent feel of the entire operation this year.
the commercials were uncreative, obnoxious, and cynical [the iTunes ad, anyone?]
and somehow the halftime show was worse! i'm not really in favor of an investigation here. as a matter of fact i don't think a flash of breast is anything to get upset about. what upsets me is just how LAME the entire show was before the tit-exposure. the only artist on stage who isn't a complete has-been was Nelly, the sound was horrible, and the medley was absolute chaos. i've known for a LOOOONG time that mtv sucked, but that was the most lame halftime i can remember, even before the "costume reveal"...
Whether by design or habit, television has become relegated to the delivery of bread-and-circuses to the vast majority of the viewing audience. Violence, scatalogical humor, beer and car commercials, and risque displays of sexuality are therefore perfectly appropriate for the medium, whereas exploring any side of a political or ideological position in a thoughtful manner is not.
It's clear that television no longer has value as a public forum for real political or social exchanges-- if indeed it ever did. Today television is all about "commercial speech," not "free speech." Our only hope as a society is to ensure that alternate media continue to provide some outlet for intelligent and democratic discourse.
Think about it - two media stars do not set up a stunt like this without the approval of all executive levels. Messing with the superbowl is one of the closest things we have to blasphemy.
The problem is, CBS disfavors core political speech in terms of entertainment, all the time - that's why prime-time is filled with sitcoms and dramas rather than news shows 1/2 :-)
We're really wrestling with the fact that the marketplace is not always accomodating to political campaigning.
It's a great letter to the editor.
I don't know about this particular controversy though. I saw the super bowl at a fund raiser house party. At half time, we switched over to CNN and watched the MoveOn add "Child's Pay" which is an awesome 30 second spot. Almost brought a tear to me eye.
Sorry Viacom. Corporate Media's efforts to control me apparently failed. Watcha gonna do?
"Sorry Viacom. Corporate Media’s efforts to control me apparently failed. Watcha gonna do?"
That makes two of us.
I conducted a straw poll around the office over the past couple of days and about 70% of the people I asked who were watching the (agreed...miserably awful) halftime show didn't even realize they were looking at a breast before CBS cut away. The other 30% thought (and some probably still believe) that Janet was wearing a pastey.
So while I don't believe an outraged Chairman Powell should conduct a political crusade in the media spotlight over this (a quiet fine would suffice), I also have no problem with people questioning the motives of the CBS/Viacom executives over their refusal to air MoveOn's commercial yet tolerate this tripe.
Election years in the USA seem to be the cultural equivalent of full moons.
The current President bared the breasts of one ofhis daughters during an inaugural ball, so CBS is just following the example from the top.
One tip for females at balls: don't wear strapless dresses when your father may raise your arms over your head. Things pop out. For those who recorded it, look at the tape between 8:40PM and 9PM Pacific, with the daughters standing on the left of the stage..
I don't see why this is a great letter, for the following reasons.
First, why are the airwaves "publicly owned?" Sure, Congress "said so" in 1934, but can Congress also say that our cars or homes are publicly owned? What's the difference? A claim that the airwaves are publicly owned is simply a conclusion that begs a supporting argument for extensive regulation, and I have never seen a convincing argument on this score. Why not subject airwaves to the rule of capture that applies to other property? Hasn't CBS captured the airwaves from the Leviathan that hands them out? Sure, the current system of Federal handouts makes no sense, but does this mean that it's useful to think of the airwaves as public assets?
Second, why is it censorship for CBS to refuse to use its own transmitters and studios to carry someone else's message? Is it censorship if I refuse to put a Howard Dean bumper sticker on my car? After all, I only have so much space on my bumper. Maybe it's full of Kucinich stickers! Does it become censorship if the government, or a letter to the editor, declares my car public property by ipse dixit?
Third, if Moveon wants to broadcast its message, it can pay some other network to carry it, or it can pay CBS to carry it at some other part of the day. Moveon might even save some money this way, given the high cost of time during the Super Bowl. Or, heaven forbid, it could put its own capital at risk and start its own network, instead of begging someone else to devote their capital to Moveon's message!
“Sorry Viacom. Corporate Media’s efforts to control me apparently failed. Watcha gonna do?”
You watched it didn't you? The evening was probably better spent reading Cryptonomicon or hashing out new code. But that's a hacker's POV for ya.
I think we can all agree that the letter is an ultra-moralistic way of stripping down "the incident" to a component few seconds and re-casting the whole thing in an attempt to veil the crux of the writer's agenda.
Point 1: Sexuality is not bad. Certainly not as bad as the implied violence that is so wrapped up in the ultra-masculine event that constitute The Superbowl (in particular) and the NFL (in general).
Point 2: Given the context of the Superbowl (w/r/t/ pop culture phenomena) it is probably more appropriate to broach sexual themes for the flexion of Free Speech than anything else.
Point 3: This does not make it 'right' for CBS to 'suppress' the MoveOn.org ad.
Does that make CBS a threat to free speech? Hardly. A butting-of-heads occurred. CBS wanted a better ROI on the Superbowl ad space. MoveOn gets talked about in the blogosphere and elsewhere. And 99% of the world's population either didn't watch the Superbowl or can't remember more than 25% of the advertising (let alone the game itself).
Who won again?
I fail to see why this is a 'great' letter. As people have observed above, T+A is a perfectly appropriate kind of controversy for Super Bowl half-time. I dislike the First Amendment reference there also as it is clearly insincere (even in spirit the only remote connection would be through a 'public airwave' argument, and had Super Bowl been on cable-only the author would not have been any less angry at CBS). "Sexually exploitive"? this is third rate zealotry at best.
C'mon LL, we know you have far better taste than this.
The only thing that bothered me is apparently they did run 'controversial' issue ads during the game, in spite of the fact that this was their singular excuse for the MoveOn rejection.
But I agree with Chris Adams' comments, among others. Not a great way of framing the issue.
Here's the letter to the editor that I wrote to my local paper (The Tennessean) after Janet's right breast was front page news. No idea if they'll publish it.
I agree that CBS perhaps shouldn't be entrusted with our public airwaves when they use that pubic resource to squelch freedom of speech. However, I have a hardter time agreeing that perhaps they shouldn't be trusted with our public airwaves when they exercise freedom of speech.
-Rob
Point 1: Sexuality is not bad. Certainly not as bad as the implied violence that is so wrapped up in the ultra-masculine event that constitute The Superbowl (in particular) and the NFL (in general).
What implied violence?
CBS got exactly what it wanted out of this whole thing -- buzz. This year, it's what everyone is talking about around the water cooler. Next year, there will be some people who won't watch the half-time show, but far more will out of curiosity to see what might happen. ("No one ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public.") And if a 5-figure fine is involved, that's just the cost of doing business, and a very small cost at that, no more than a rounding error on the Superbowl section of the P&L sheet. CBS isn't afraid of controversy -- just as long as the controversy adds to the company's bottom line.
This Superbowl was the first football game my six year old son has ever seen. His first question as I was tyring to explain the game was, "Why are they trying to hurt each other?" As adults, it's pretty easy to tell the difference between tackling and attacking. To dismiss the "implied violence" as not being there dismisses the years and years of training we've received at ignoring violence.
"As an aside, there can be little question that The Great Tit Stunt was planned, and that at least someone at CBS/MTV knew about it in advance. The lights went out almost instantly, and the camera cut away before anyone would have had a chance to react and make a decision to do so."
While I suspect the GTS was planned, the assumption that the quick cutaway was due to pre-planning is off the mark. It only takes a fraction of a second for a good technical director to see and react to something in a live broadcast. I used to work the audio board for live news programming, and I can guarantee it only takes a fraction of a second for a good director or board op to notice that something's wrong and to react to it by cutting to a different angle or whatever. I'm sure that the board ops and directors doing the Super Bowl were seasoned technical folks with plenty of experience doing live programming.
If it were pre-planned, maybe one of the board ops could come forward to verify that they were briefed on the stunt, but I doubt that they had to be briefed to react that quickly.
CBS is a corporation (that is part of a larger corporation). They are regulated by the FCC, which is run by the Bush Administration. They aren't going to run an ad that is critical of the administration, and the FCC is not going to go after them for not running it. Looks pretty cut-and-dried to me.
Get a life, the job of entertainers is to entertain. It could
have been planned or an accident, either way, I think the
real problem is that it trumped the other advertisements
(commercials, hypped shows), and there are a few sour
grapes.
Thousands of people converge on a city in Louisiana every year to expose the tits they have, or encourage those who have them, to do so.
What is the big deal about Janet Jackson's tit?
Why are people outraged about Janet Jackson's tit, and not, say, THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD LIED LIED LIED LIED LIED TO GET YOUR COUNTRY TO GO TO WAR?
I'd be pissed off about that.
Oh-- will Rep. Ose let me say (write) the word "tit" on the internet anymore?
Tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits.
A very puzzled Canadian.
PS: tits!
It's interesting (and telling) that a one-second sophomoric event opens up this artery of debate.
--As to Janet's exposed tit, I don't care. Didn't bother me in the slightest. Legally, CBS violated the law as enforced by the FCC and should be fined for it. Reform the law if you don't approve of it. Isn't that the position taken by the RIAA-apologists?
--As to the duplicity of CBS, I disagree with Alan: your bumper is not federally regulated and it wasn't specifically assigned to you by people paid with my taxes. When federally regulated broadcasters are allowed to pick and choose the political messages they send, we might as well just elect the CEOs of those broadcasters to power. MoveOn did in fact "move on" to another broadcaster: CNN. But they shouldn't have had to. Money is money and message is message. If CBS were truly, in the purest sense of the capitalist spirit, trying to deliver shareholder value, why did they refuse MoveOn's money?
And they claimed that they wanted to avoid controversial issues? :)
--Jason
Garbage. CBS explained why they blocked MoveOn's ad prior to the game. But Bodice-ripper Justin TimeBerlake decided he'd wage a stubbly Gen-X protest by helping Janet show the world her Sunspot. The rest of the halftime show was crud and the music sucked. The boob surprise was a crypto-feminist message about white male oppression right in the midst of the evil, violent NFL, which is basically an entertainment company, not a sports league. Viacom won, TiVo won, the talking heads won, Justin and Janet won, and Lessig wins. All the important people. But if you were watching the game with your eight year old, it was something straight out of Times Square.
Cultural Noise.
Do I not recall something about some crazy-assed amendments to the US Constitution. While not directly about Janet Jackson, her tit, or the FCC, isn't there a weird concept of freedom of the press or something?
Tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits!
TITS!
And Lessig will publish the article from the chick in the Boston Globe, but he got the text from the same place he links to, and he doesn't bother to mention the Boston Globe's electronic edition, whose DRM wouldn't have let him do that, if it's anything like the NYT's (failed) electronic edition.
The letter misses the point. CBS discriminated by not showing the MoveOn ad but showing other ads. They didn't give equal opportunity to all comers, which is okay at a newspaper, but wrong at a broadcast outlet which licences public property. The content of the half-time show is irrelevant. The content of the other ads is somewhat relevant--that's an apples-to-apples comparison--but even if there hadn't been any tasteless ads, and even if there hadn't been a controversial half-time moment, declining to run the MoveOn ad would have still been wrong.
Janet Jackson's boob (which, to her credit, appeared not to have been surgically enhanced) doesn't bother me a bit. In fact, I thought it looked rather nice. (By the way, my wife is a genius: She channel-surfed to the Super Bowl halftime show, asked me what it was, disbelieved me when I told her, said, "Hey, is that her breast hanging out?", and channel-surfed away, all in under two minutes.) What does worry me is that CBS came up--inadvertently, I'm sure--with a way of distracting people from the tail end of the MoveOn controversy.
IF J.J. WAS PLANNING A PUBLICITY SHOT..SHE SURE GOT IT EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT..HOWEVER I DON'T FEEL A QUICK SHOT OF HER PASTY COVERED BREAST WAS NEAR AS BAD AS THE GUYS HOLDING ON TO THEIR "MANHOOD"??? ALL THE TIME THEY WERE ON THE STAGE .... AND NO ONE SEEMS TO OBJECT TO THAT... I WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT MY GRANDCHILDREN WATCHING THAT AN SOME OF THE COMMERCIALS...
I was in a room where people were watching football the night Joe Theisman's leg was broken. Replays ran the leg breaking, over and over, slowly, from every angle so you could see in detail how it bent where no leg was supposed to bend. Disgusting--but no fines, no complaints.
So:
I propose that, from now on, whenever a woman's breast might be shown on television, we cut away to good, clean American violence.
We need to look at CBS as it is and not try to force its behavior into boxes of our own making that have nothing to do with how its execs reason and act.
To the extent that the management of CBS has politics, they're far more likely to back a liberal Democrat (Dean & Kerry) than Bush. So forget this silliness about political censorship. As we move toward Election 2004, we all know CBS will spin their news coverage in favor of Kerry. That's as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise.
Comparisons to the trash that was also broadcast also don't stand muster. To the extent that the management of CBS thinks about culture, much of their every day programing is as trashy as this year's SuperBowl. (And, I might add, some of the ads--farting horses and crouch-biting dogs--were as bad as the half-time show.) CBS's main blunder was regarding the SuperBowl, which many Americans still see as a for-all-the-family event, as if it were evening prime time.
Be realistic. Virtually everything CBS does is driven by greed. That's undoubtedly always been the case, but in recent years the spread of cable TV with dozens of channels and the Internet, which is much more interesting and gives more choices, their viewing audience is smaller and generates less advertising revenue. For them, that is VERY BAD.
Increasingly, they are going after an audience that advertisers love because it has two things advertisers like most: 1. lots of money to waste and 2. incredible stupidity. I'm referring, of course, to young, single males. That's what drives all the grossness and clothes ripping.
Beside's being absurd, MoveOn's Charles Dickens-like ad simply wasn't something that would appear to these morons. If MoveOn wanted to fit into the world of SuperBowl ads, they should have shown one with an elephant (representing the Republicans) pooping into a great big pile. That would have fit CBS's target demographic perfectly and might have been run without a hitch.
--Mike Perry
IF CBS TAKES THE DISTRICT AND THE GUARDIAN OFF THEIR PROGRAMING AS SEEN IN THE FALL PREVIEW I WILL MISS ALOT OF COLD CASE AND JUDGING AMY BECAUSE I WILL NOT WATCH CBS ANYMORE BUT THEY WILL BRING BACK CRAP LIKE SURVIVOR????? AND OTHERS PLEASE!!!!!!
nice site i really like it