CBS and the FCC appear to be at loggerheads over the infamous 2004 Super Bowl halftime show exposure of Janet Jackson's right breast, affectionately known throughout the land as Nipplegate.
The Federal Communications Commission concluded Wednesday in a punctilious 16-page order that it was correct to decide laws against indecent broadcasts were violated by “the offensive spectacle of a man tearing off a woman’s clothing on stage" during the broadcast, and that their decision to fine CBS stations $550,000 for the offense would stand.
The Eye network had asked that the decision be reconsidered on the grounds that pulling off a portion of Janet Jackson's bustier to reveal her breast was not indecent, and that they weren't legally responsible for the halftime show anyway, which was produced by MTV.
"CBS has apologized to the American people many times for the inappropriate and unexpected half-time incident during the 2004 Super Bowl," the network said in a statement. "We have taken steps to make certain it will never happen again. But we continue to disagree with the FCC's finding that the broadcast was legally indecent."
The FCC countered, "The Commission rejects CBS' argument that the FCC's indecency framework is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, both on its face and as applied to the halftime show."
CBS concluded in a huff, “We will continue to pursue all remedies necessary to affirm our legal rights, and so today’s decision by the FCC is just another step in that process,” which hardly sounds conciliatory.
CBS, along with the other three major networks and their affiliate organizations, is already in court seeking to overturn a new round of indecency penalties proposed by the FCC in March.
Indecency is a very hot topic in government. There are currently two indecency bills pending, one in the Senate, another in the house; the FCC has increased fines to stations that air indecent programming, and is proposing for the first time fines to individual performers for violations in addition to levies against the offending broadcast organizations.
The still expanding ripples of Nipplegate began at the Feb 1, 2004 Super Bowl in Houston, televised on CBS, in which an already tawdry pageant of bumping-and-grinding and crotch-grabbing entered uncharted territory when Justin Timberlake, flirting with Jackson throughout his "Rock Your Body" performance, sang the fateful line, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song."
Article comments
1 - mliving
Never mind Janet's boob.
The FCC should be kickin' Fox's Bill O'Reilly ass off the air for his bigoted and completely untruthful attacks on anyone who happens to disagree with his opinion.
You know. Those of us who know the truth!
crooksandliars.com
2 - Dynamo of Eternia
Talk about something that's been blown way our of proportion.
Ok, it shouldn't have happened. But really, what hard did this cause? Maybe a kid or two saw a boob.. a natural part of a woman's body? Somehow I doubt that they will be scared for life as a result.
They are putting more time, effort, and money into investigating this than most law enforcement does to investigate a murder. It's ridiculous.
And as pointed out, there was all kinds of bumping, grinding, and sexually suggestive things happening in that performance (and on TV in general) long before the wardrobe malfunction ever happened. Somehow everyone was perfectly fine with that, but the second a boob pops out, we've crossed some kind of terrible line into the 10th level of hell?
I also love how after this happened, the super bowl was suddenly being described as a 'family program', making this malfunction that much more worse in that context. It's kind of funny how football, and esspecially the super bowl, went from something that is typically watched by men who are loud, yell, and swear (at the game) while eating fatty snacks and drinking beer to something that is meant to be enjoyed by the entire family in the same manner as a movie like "Cheaper by the Dozen." Give me a break!
At the end of the day, this shouldn't have happened, but it did. Pick up the pieces and move on. There's no reason why this should be continuing on like this over two years later. It's over, it's done with. Do what you have to do to make sure it doesn't happen again and move on.
3 - Eric Olsen
of course it's ridiculous that they are still dealing with it two and a half years later, but CBS has appealed the fine twice now, and now implies they are taking it to court. If they had paid the fine, which was first announced in September of '04, it would have been over long ago.
The reason the FCC won't reconsider is becuase there was so much public outcry.
4 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks for updating and keeping this story alive. It's important to keep reminding people of just how important this story is. In my article about the FCC, Networks and Howard Stern, I was just as appalled, and I agree with you 101 Percent...
5 - Eric Olsen
thanks Jet - I as I said: I blame it on TiVO
6 - Matt Paprocki
It's not CBS's fault. It's the PTC, who apparently represent all Amercian viewers by banning together to basically spam the FCC with how offended they were by a nipple. I could dig it up, but I believe the stat to be that 90% of FCC complaints come from them. For whatever reason, the FCC thinks they represent the typical TV watching American.
CBS should fight this to no end. Otherwise, its setting a stupid precedent that the PTC can get their way whenever they find some crap like this offensive, and they find just about everything indecent. If you enjoy TV the way its intended, we need to find a way to convince the FCC that these people stop getting their way.
I don't even know where to start with that crusade.
7 - Eric Olsen
another problem is that the FCC has had these rules all along, but only recently started enforcing them
8 - Jet in Columbus
Eric, I'd add the word "Selectively" between started and enforcing.
9 - Falstaff
You are all correct on many counts:
First, the PTC is responsible for 90-95% of all complaints to the FCC. They claim 1 million members, yet they game the FCC complaint system to effectively make TV viewing decisions for 110 million U.S. TV households. Hardly democracy in action.
Second, the same FCC that decides to fine a critically-acclaimed Martin Scorsese documentary "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons," for raw language, turns the other way and lets the Oprah Winfrey Show off the hook despite the fact that it featured a very frank afternoon discussion of teen sex. This proves that the government is incapable of making subjective viewing decisions that can only be made by parents and individuals.
Third, the government fails to accept the fact that parents and individuals already have the TV ratings and content-blocking devices that they need to make and enforce their own TV viewing decisions. This makes government regulation of TV both unnecessary and undesirable.
Check out TV Watch, at www.televisionwatch.org, for a common-sense voice of reason in this debate.
10 - Eric Olsen
yes, I agree "selectively" is a core problem. Rules should be enforced fairly across the board - I'm sure that's part of why CBS and the other nets are so outraged: they got away with more or less ignoring the rules before
11 - Jet in Columbus
Additionally Eric, there's an old saying "give a mouse a cookie and he'll want a glass of milk".
We both know they won't stop there. The problem as I see it is IF they'll stop at all?