Posted on 02/02/2004 6:01:05 PM PST by Rennes Templar
PHOENIX (Reuters) - Sometimes a breast is just a breast. Howard Dean, a physician and a Democratic presidential candidate, on Monday dismissed as "silly" a government inquiry into whether indecency rules were broken during the broadcast of the Super Bowl halftime show when pop diva Janet Jackson's bodice was ripped to expose her right breast.
"I find that to be a bit of a flap about nothing," the former Vermont governor said. "I'm probably affected in some ways by the fact that I'm a doctor, so it's not exactly an unusual phenomenon for me."
During the break in the National Football League's championship game, singer Justin Timberlake reached for Jackson as they sang a duet and tore off part of her black leather bustier.
Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell promised a "thorough and swift" investigation of the stunt aired during one of the most popular American television broadcasts, which also attracts a major worldwide audience.
"In general, I think the FCC does have a role in promoting some reasonable standard of decency," Dean told reporters aboard his campaign plane. "However, considering what's on television these days, I think the FCC is being pretty silly about investigating this."
Dean, who does not have cable television at his home in Burlington, Vermont, said Americans could inadvertently turn on "far worse things" while "cruising through cable at regular viewing hours."
"I don't find it terribly shocking relative to some of the things you can find on standard cable television," he added. "I think the FCC probably has a lot of other things they should be pursuing."
The CBS broadcast prompted widespread outrage and the FCC launched its inquiry after receiving complaints from the public.
I propose that we have a contest:
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Dean People Suck!"
Cool! See... my message of anarchy is already producing converts. Maybe I will qualify for federal matching funds? Just have to figure out a way of justifying that as a proper role for a government that I don't think should exist? Hmmm...
Very well said. Familys are getting rid of their cable, so are people going to start getting rid of their televisions as well? How far is the irresponsible "entertainment" industry going to go? Seems nothing is sacred anymore, even a football game.
I actually had a poster on another thread tell me that kids had no business watching a football game in the first place. Amazing.....
The FCC has decency rules during prime time TV hours. A bare breast or one that shows a nipple is definitely off limits. All broadcasters know this.
Where do you find that the Super Bowl is supposed to be family oriented? Anywhere on the NFL website?? A brochure perhaps?
...ducking...
Like what? Isn't this one of the purposes of the FCC? They're not going to pursue shows on cable.
I would normally ignore such an obvious trol... but here are a few of the stories and features on www.superbowl.com (a website owned by the NFL)... The NFL Experience ticket includes all games and attractions $15.00 for adults and $10.00 for children under 12.
"The week's activities, which also will include the announcement of the 2003 NFL High School Football Coach of the Year Award, promise to provide young people with lasting legacies of this year's Super Bowl."
The following are just some of the ways that the NFL and Super Bowl XXXVIII will benefit youngsters in the host community of Houston:
East Houston Hispanic Youth Football Grant Initiative
NFL Super Bowl XXXVIII Youth Clinic
NFL Super Bowl XXXVIII Cheerleading Spirit Clinic
NFL Players Inc. "Stay Cool in School" Youth Clinic
The Field Generals Quarterback Youth Clinic
Yeah, I dont know where I got the crazy idea that the Super Bowl was family-oriented... Sheesh.
For the last ten games of this season I didn't want my son watching my Vikings playing!
But what the heck. At least he'll understand the Depression when they teach it to him in school :)
There are 100s of cable channels that are available for pretty much any kind of porn. People who want porn, nudity and whatever have no limits at all on how much they can have --- but to offer or force unsolicited porn to other people's children should be a crime. If I allowed a 10 year old child to watch the superbowl thinking it was going to be wholesome, they did not have a right to include these kinds of acts without warning.
You make a good point about appropriateness here. People demand and by law are granted privacy protection for exposure of their bodies -- ALL PARTS -- by medical personnel. So DR. Dean really has a non sequitur argument.
I suspect that DR. Dean is bragging...("Heh-heh, I'm a doctor, I see lots of breasts.")...he would have done better, once again, to keep his mouth shut.
I'm starting to wonder. I've tried twice to get an email through to them, and both got sent right back to me. The second one was directly to Mr. Powell, whose email address is on the website (www.fcc.gov).
But I'll tell you what, if you've got a gripe about your cell phone bill, or "slamming" by the phone companies, that's the place to go!!! *Sigh*
I can't recall any today --- or 5 or 10 years ago. I thought she was already a has-been 15 years ago, I think more than anything this is a desperate ploy from the both of them to get their faces in the celebrity magazine covers again. Timberlake was only known as a teeny-bopper celebrity, that's as far as his talent could ever take him. Some other hard-up celebrity will do something "outrageous" next week and these two will be out --- out to the scrap heap of old pop stars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.