PVCC Puma Press: March 2004

It is election season and political candidates are out stumping the country, desperately wanting America's attention, but what takes the public by storm? Not those missing WMD's or the economy or our missing jobs but Janet Jackson's bare breast. If one breast caused all that fuss, can you imagine if both were exposed? Why, there might have been riots in the streets.

All the TV airtime, radio play, newspapers, editorial columns (including this one) and all this outrage for what is called "a work" in the pro-wrestling business—a fake stunt made to appear real to excite the fans. And boy, did they get excited. And what else do we expect from a program produced by MTV? I personally thought the crotch grabbing, freak dancing a lot more vulgar display of crass commercialism. Perhaps all those viewers and commentators who got so worked up haven't seen a music video in the past 10 years? Our young people have, trust me on that one.

........................
Parents don’t want children exposed to nudity on free TV.
........................

But isn't this just another example of the entertainment industry's attempt to grab the audience's attention? What was once considered risqué and unacceptable is now considered standard plot material even for the Disney Channel. CBS claims it didn't know anything about this stunt and Janet has taken full responsibility for it. Perhaps.

Still, it was just another example of the falling standards and where will it all end? With all the outrage that this stunt has generated maybe a line has been drawn—no bare breasts on network TV and especially on half-time shows. However, anyone can watch all the simulated sex they want on cable and pay per view movies.

The LA Times recently reported that because of intense scrutiny MTV is taking its "edgiest videos" off daytime rotation. Is that what they call them? Ten years ago, it would have been considered soft porn. I guess that means young children won't be able to watch with their teen-aged babysitters. But not to worry, pre-teens can still watch them during their sleepovers after the parents have gone to bed.

Entertainers have always pushed the boundaries, just to be heard, to be seen, to be noticed. There is such a fine line between fame and notoriety. Janet Jackson is bearing the brunt of the criticism, but hey what about Justin? He is just as responsible, yet he still appeared on the Grammy Award Show but not her. Where's the justice in that? Or is it all about money? Ya Thnk? He's on top and she's not, it's as simple as that.

Yet, who would have thought that Janet Jackson would have been the "tipping point" for a long delayed discussion on the slippage of standards on the "boob tube?" Janet at 37 years old is still gorgeous, but it is unfortunate that she allowed herself to perform this stunt in order to compete against the young divas almost 20 years younger. She didn't need to strip to find an audience.

But she knows and everyone knows, it's all about who can be the most shocking. Who can grab a fickle audience whose attention span has grown shorter over the years. It's all about ratings and getting the numbers. If you don't have them, it's good-bye and good luck and let's move on to the next performer. And we have accepted it. But for those of us who are trying to raise children, it's unacceptable. And in the end, that is why there was such a media storm and fuss made about it—because parents didn't want their children exposed to nudity on free TV.

Congressional hearings are going to being held on indecency and broadcast standards. Industry executives are being called to testify. Politicians will have their say. Is this a case of locking the barn door after the horses have escaped? I think so. But, as a parent, I think the stables could use a little sweeping up and cleaning out.