Michael Griffiths said:
So what if he's a rock star? He could be the Queen of England, but that still wouldn't change the fact that it wasn't the messenger that got shot down, but the message. It wasn't as though Bono was going to deliver some huge speech; he was just going to sing a song with a mention of its intent. This is arguably the most important issue of the 21st Century, and as has been noted in this thread, many Americans would agree. So this isn't simply a "rockstars opinion", as you say. This is reality. If you disagree with the cause, you would probably be in the minority, which is all well and good, but in stark contrast with the reality of the situation both in context of public opinion of the cause as well as the cause itself.
As for Janet's breast being exposed, that's really a side issue. If anything, it only provoked some thought on the main concern. I still can't believe there's an investigation into the incident. Do poeple reallly care this much? It's over. It's just a breast, for goodness sakes. It was a silly stunt, but it's just a body part. Over 50% of the population has them. We shouldn't be ashamed of breasts. As I've said, there are far more important issues to concern ourselves with.
My issue here is some ppl seem to think that bono has somehow been denied an audience for this issue. HE's been on CNN, quite frequently, NBC, CBS, I'm sure ABC at some point, Oprah, (which has a HUGE viewership), MTV, Time magazine (the cover mind you), Newsweek, Charlie Rose and I'm sure I'm missing some.
If your making the argument that the america is somehow trying to deny bono an audience....quite frankly..it's not a very strong point.
So if you allow Aids to be an issue this year...will people make presidential endorsments at superbowls? will ppl lobby for free health care? Will ppl lobby for welfare reform?
The NFL has the right, to essentially determine the content of their show. Maybe they just dont' want to see their halftime show be a springboard for political statements in the future. And you said he wasn't going to deliver a speech...I understand this, BUT, the SINGLE thing this halftime show has taught us..is that it doens't take much to stir controversy.
The NFL isn't a political entity. It's a for profit corporation. Maybe they just wanted to stay out of anything that seemed political.
Are you saying that remaining neutral is in fact wrong? Fine he wants to sing a song...but still it doesn't change the fact that he was somehow going to convey a message that maybe the NFL just didn't want to be affiliated with.
I don't think people really understand that the NFL actually does a lot of humanitarian work and I do believe that NFL players are going on a trip to africa later this year. Maybe the NFL wants to let players do the talking rather than the Halftime show
the Bottom line is it's unfair to characterize the ENTIRE US for the actions of a limited number of corporate entities. There are ppl that pay upwards of 1k for tickets to the superbowl, maybe the NFL wants to keep them happy.
I don't think it was smart for the NFL to do what they did...but I understand why. The last thing I'm going to say here is, you can't rely on the NFL to be some sort of conscience for america, and yo certainly can't judge the entire nation for it.