Jackson wardrobe malfunction draws $930,000 fine |
I’m totally with Dvorak on the Janet Jackson breast exposure fine being ridiculous. 
I watched this game and, to be honest, the flash was not noticeable. Who watches the halftime show anyway? I had to go back on a Tivo recording to even see the incident and it was trivial. So this is incredible bullshit.
I’m also somewhat disappointed that nobody took us up on the cover up Janet Jackson’s breast photoshop challenge. Just imagine all the creative possibilities … I wonder if anybody else had success with a similar challenge?
Did this post make you go hmm?
(Hmm, no ratings yet)
Loading ...
The argument is, is that they are a “family channel” and “children were watching”. Which is true. A lot of kids/preteens will tune into the super bowl just to watch the half time performance (mainly because of Justin). And some parents flipped because they didn’t want their kids seeing nudity yet at that age (understandable, eh). If there had been a warning about it before hand, parents wouldn’t have let their young kids watch. And etc, etc.
*shrugs* personally I could care less about her showing her boob, but honestly she deserves the fine for a) lying about the “wardrobe malfunction” bit (c’mon just be honest to begin with, don’t weasel out of it), and b) trying t do something “shocking” to get even more attention. Wasn’t she already getting enough, just performing at the super bowl? But that’s just my opinion.
Comment by emma — September 28, 2004 @ 6:01 pm PST
Good points, emma. I would argue that the Superbowl or NFL in general is not geared towards a preteen audience. Just watch the Monday night game, any game for that matter. Who are the advertisers? What are they advertising: alcohol, viagra, etc. Not to mention the scantily-clad cheerleaders with jiggling body parts that the camera just happens to pan in on (that’s no accident). So if they are trying to cater to a family-friendly audience then they need to work on the content of the programming and advertisers.
Comment by TDavid — September 28, 2004 @ 9:00 pm PST
ok, i missed the original event, but the hoo-ha over Private Ryan means this nonsense is growing out of control, instead of fading as it should have.
finally found a website that showed the details - my thought - what? ya gotta be kidding! she’s got that nipple ring thing blocking the view, which is small and, what, 2 seconds? I am thinking we see this much on oscar night, there is always a few w/ really “interesting” dresses.
i suppose that oscar night is not a family event only because people sleep through it, it is so boring!
cheerleaders, viagra commercials… the point was already made… exactly!
people better never take their kids to europe or hope no woman ever loses her top at a pool or beach.
c’mon people… it was a fleeting view of something natural… there are lots more enticing things on display for kids to see anyway.
Comment by bob — November 19, 2004 @ 1:14 am PST
[…] Morality gone wild! I realize some people don’t like porn and will see this as a very negative sign for Zinio. Some people think it’s evil and immoral and a lot of other things, but I have a much more healthier outlook on life and adult content’s place in society. If consenting adults want to look at content like this, that’s fine with me, who am I to judge? Heck, I might just buy a Penthouse subscription to support this Zinio movement. Those who dislike Zinio working their way into harder adult content, no pun intended, should realize that society as a whole needs to stop being so paranoid about sex. The hypocrisy that exists with violence compared to sex is mind numbing. We can watch people get brutally murdered on regular TV, but show wardrobe malfunctions are a national crisis. […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » Zinio digitizing goes more hardcore by offering Penthouse — February 9, 2006 @ 12:15 pm PST