Repressed Mammary
by Michelle Cottle
Only at TNR Online
Let me just say right up front that Janet Jackson has a great set of knockers. And her Super Bowl flash dance has certainly livened up things on Capitol Hill, where members of Congress and the FCC are currently competing to see who can express the most shock and indignation over the sad state of pop culture. (Nothing is quite so amusing as a bunch of self-righteous old gasbags sitting around talking about boobies.) But if you believe that Jackson's wardrobe malfunction will, as FCC Commissioner Michael Copps asserted, have a "galvanizing effect" on efforts to halt TV's long slide into the gutter, then give me a call because I have some sweet beachfront property in Kabul I'd like to sell you.
Perhaps I'm being a shade unfair. The now infamous boob shot may very well galvanize efforts to tone down the vulgarity on the tube. But I wouldn't bet on any widespread change being achieved. If the proposals emanating from this week's congressional hearings are any indication, lawmakers and regulators are just as overwhelmed, desperate, and clueless about how to tackle this problem as your average soccer mom.
Possible correctives currently being floated include: jacking up the maximum penalties allowed for infractions (from $27,500 to $275,000); widening the circle of responsibility by fining the artists and networks involved; instituting a "three strikes" rule that would revoke the licenses of stations that serially offend; reinstituting a safe-haven "family hour"; branding programs with a ratings icon to run after each commercial break, complete with audio warnings loud enough for parents to hear in a nearby room (good God, talk about irritating); and even replacing live Super Bowl halftime shows with taped ones.
Of course, even if the FCC somehow managed to obtain the resources and the authority required to implement these wide-ranging proposals, most of them would prove stunningly ineffective in preventing the sort of unpredictable, live-TV shenanigans in which Justin, Janet, and her mammary engaged. While Jackson seems to have planned this prank right down to the exact nipple shield she wanted to be seen wearing, CBS most likely intended for the big game to remain at least relatively family-friendly. (And spare me all the hand-wringing about the inappropriateness of TV ads featuring horse farts. If there's one thing little boys are experts on it's scatological humor.) If CBS in fact had no idea that such a stunt was in the offing, fining the network after the fact hardly seems just. Ditto for yanking the licenses of unwitting stations that had the audacity to air the Super Bowl. As for punishing the artist involved: This little p.r. stunt, conducted just as Jackson's new single was being released, provided Jackson and Virgin Records--both of whom are in desperate need of a hit--with enough free media to balance out even the most eye-popping fines. (According to Billboard, four days before the Super Bowl, Jackson's new single was being played on a measly handful of stations nationwide; the day after her mammary made its primetime debut "plays of the song jumped 500 percent." One New York station was reportedly airing the song every hour.)
Indeed, the only aforementioned proposal that would guarantee something like this didn't happen again is the narrowly targeted proposal to ban live Super Bowl halftime shows. But talk about micromanagement. Do the FCC and Congress really want to start down this road? Would they then try dictating which individual performers could appear live at, say, the Grammys or the Oscars? Before the boob shot, the FCC had its knickers in a twist over Madonna and Britney's spit-swapping at the 2003 MTV awards. The threat of fines notwithstanding, does anyone really believe that MTV would prevent two of the biggest female pop phenoms in history from appearing live at any event they wanted to attend? Or what about Diane Keaton's extemporaneous profanity at last month's Golden Globes? Who saw that coming? I mean, when was the last time Diane Keaton was a remotely controversial figure? Trying to regulate the mouths (and mammaries) of spoiled celebrities who crave attention would ultimately require some seriously draconian measures on the part of the FCC.
For the most part, the networks' decision to resurrect the use of a time-delay for live programming should put a damper on performers' impromptu indecencies. (What's the fun of baring a breast if it's going to be pixilated by the time it hits viewers' TV sets?) But is the occasional publicity stunt on live shows really what Congress is worried about? Long before Madonna slipped Britney the tongue, Calista Flockhart and Lucy Liu were doing the same thing (with much higher production values) on the now-defunct "Ally McBeal"--a primetime network show. And while I absolutely adored "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," that recently retired series--which, as the name suggests, targeted young viewers--served up some of the most graphic sexual content (both hetero and homo) you could find on basic cable. Will the FCC now start cracking down on the scores of mainstream shows like these (not to mention the wave of ever-raunchier reality programming), where the problem isn't a clearly defined moment of indecency so much as a slow, deepening embrace of sex and violence? Hint: The answer is no. Why? Because, lawmakers' sprawling raft of dream correctives aside, wading into this territory is always very complicated and very controversial--especially for a bunch of guys who have to worry about getting reelected every couple of years.
Moreover, for all of its boob-fueled bluster, the FCC still isn't sure about where it should draw the line. Viacom president Mel Karmazin came across as a smart-ass when he testified Wednesday that, before dreaming up new punishments for broadcasters, the FCC should first work on clarifying its definition of indecency. FCC Commissioner Michael Powell was offended, declaring that "there is no ambiguity with the indecency standard. It has existed for 30 years." Really? The FCC would have sanctioned French kissing between chicks in 1974? Please. ABC itself tried to stop an on-screen smooch between Mariel Hemingway and Roseanne Barr in a 1994 episode of "Roseanne." As for profanity, "ass" and "bitch" were hardly common usage on the networks 20 years ago, much less 30. And let us not forget that it was Michael Powell's own FCC that, when Bono blurted out "fucking brilliant" during last year's Golden Globes, just smiled and nodded and ruled that this live, primetime use of the queen mother of all profanity did not violate decency standards because it was used as an adjective. So that's the key. If only Janet could have found a way to make her mammaries more adjectival, CBS could have avoided this whole mess.
So while we can expect a bit of panicked self-censorship by nervous networks over the next few weeks (witness the decision on "ER" to excise a brief shot of an elderly patient's naked breast), don't put too much stock in all these predictions that Janet's boob will, as one AP story apocalyptically put it, "end up putting the brakes on years of plunging standards in the entertainment industry." If the FCC can't get a grip on what type of offenses it wants to target--or even what really constitutes an offense these days--the networks can't be expected to hold the line for long. With pay-cable shows like "The Sopranos" and "Sex and the City" increasingly stealing the networks' thunder, we'll be lucky if this time next year Donald Trump's would-be apprentices aren't showing up for work buck naked. |
