Replies

Now, there might be a "difference" between full nudity vs. partial nudity, but it is still nudity. And while I don't have any problem or hang ups about nudity, it is totally bogus to give it a complete pass.

From what the papers are reporting today, the streaker was wearing a g-string and shoes. But as I've posted in another thread, CBS' real problem with the streaker is that he had a gambling website written on his body. Obviously, nudity is no problem for CBS, but somebody trying to get free advertising is!

It was wrong for CBS to allow this to go out over the airways. They knew it before time and they let it go without a warning to parents that there may be some parts not appropriate for children.

You raise some good points. The thing is, if they're asked why they didn't have a parental warning on, CBS would say that they didn't know what was going to happen, which, as you know, is total Barbra Streisand. All these "events" are orchestrated down to the second.

Well, actually I commented on that too, though I quickly dismissed it, not for the purposes of plausible deniability, but for the fact the executives at CBS/MTV/Viacom probably never got that far.

CBS/MTV/Viacom execuSCUM: Nudity in the Super Bowl halftime show?
CBS/MTV/Viacom execuSCUM: BRILLIANT!
CBS/MTV/Viacom execuSCUM: Janet Jackson's nipple exposed on national television.
CBS/MTV/Viacom execuSCUM: BRILLIANT!
CBS/MTV/Viacom execuSCUM: Not provide a warning to parents, just in case they don't want their kids watching.
CBS/MTV/Viacom execuSCUM: BRILLIANT!

So, you would only be right if I conceded they got that far. I mean, hey, these are the same people that employee Dan Rather. What makes you think that they give a flying flip what they spew?