Justin and Janet's Boob = Racism

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]Timberlake Under a White-Hot Spotlight
Singer ripped for abandoning Janet and urban fans

By Rafer Guzm?n
STAFF WRITER

February 11, 2004


It started as a controversy over exposed skin. Now the focus is on skin color.

When Justin Timberlake ripped away Janet Jackson's bra cup to reveal her right breast during CBS' broadcast of last week's Super Bowl halftime show, they sparked a public- relations disaster that drew the ire of CBS, the NFL and even the FCC. In the days following, both singers issued public apologies - but with very different results.

While Jackson shouldered most of the responsibility for the incident, Timberlake distanced himself from it, painting himself as a victim. Now Timberlake is under fire from urban radio stations that feel he betrayed not only Jackson but, in a sense, the entire urban-music community he's worked so hard to emulate.

"It doesn't take a genius to notice that he pays homage to a lot of African-American singing greats," says Miss Info, a morning-show host on the hip-hop station "Hot 97" (WQHT/97.1 FM). Many callers "feel like he's been accepted by a multicultural audience, and they want him to stand by his multicultural musical coworkers."

Initially, Jackson and Timberlake benefited from the Super Bowl stunt, which became a popular topic in newscasts, late- night monologues and watercooler conversation. Jackson's new single "Just a Little While" was released to radio stations the day after the Super Bowl and became a hotly requested song. "That was fun," Timberlake said in a television interview immediately after the performance. "We love giving you something to talk about."

But as criticism grew and the FCC announced it would launch an investigation, Timberlake changed his tune, blaming the incident on a "wardrobe malfunction" and apologizing for any offense. Jackson went even further, claiming responsibility for the maneuver.

What has angered many black music fans is that Timberlake then seemed to turn his back on Jackson. In an interview with a CBS television station in Los Angeles, Timberlake claimed he was "completely shocked and appalled" by her partial nudity. He also described himself as a successful artist who's above such stunts. "I've had a good year," he said. "I don't feel I need publicity like this."

Those statements raised issues of Timberlake's loyalty to Jackson and to black music as a whole. A former crooner in a boy band, Timberlake has essentially used R&B music to gain credibility as a solo artist, says Erik Parker, music editor at the urban-music magazine Vibe. From his Michael Jackson-esque vocals to the records he's made with musicians such as Nelly, Brian McKnight and the Neptunes, Timberlake has ingratiated himself with an audience that often regards blue-eyed soul with suspicion.

"When that audience feels betrayed or exploited, there's going to be some type of repercussions," Parker says. Consciously or not, Timberlake is "abusing his white privilege."

At urban radio stations, callers have been irate. "They're mad at Justin," says Wendy Williams, a nationally syndicated radio host based in New York, whose show airs on WBLS/107.5 FM. "They'll support Janet, but they'll look at Justin and say, 'Your ghetto pass has been revoked. You're no longer an honorary brother.'"

It didn't help that Jackson's planned performance on CBS' Grammy awards broadcast Sunday night was canceled, while Timberlake's went forward. (He also collected two Grammys.) In fact, CBS asked both artists to apologize at the ceremony before they would be allowed to perform, and Timberlake did so. Jackson declined to attend. Still, the perception has been one of unequal treatment.

"I did a poll about whether if Janet was to be barred, should Justin be barred also, and the resounding answer was yes," says Ed Lover, a morning show host on "Power 105" (WWPR/105.1 FM). "My audience thinks there's some racism involved there."

Timberlake triumphed at the Grammy ceremony during his duet with trumpeter Arturo Sandoval, pushing aside the controversy and forging ahead with his song "Se?orita." The number proved that he was adept at not only R&B but Latin-inflected jazz.

"Our audiences are very savvy and critical, but they're also forgiving," Miss Info says. "If he can stand the heat, he'll be able to come back into the kitchen." [/Q]
 
So now covering your ass is racism?

I think Justin took the pansy way out by not admitting he knew what he was doing, but by no means is it racism.
 
^ ditto, and now I have reason 45897196731948756743815761 to add to my list of why Justin sucks :down:

has MTV been sued yet?...
 
Playing the race card has become a source of power for some. Unfortunately, it does little to bring an end to racism in this country.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
has MTV been sued yet?...

Not yet but people are calling for a boycott of MTV and their sponsors at www.boycottmtv.net. Such a load of crap this is I can't believe nipplegate causes more of a stirr than Bush's Newsweek interview. :angry:

For years MTV has been sexually exploiting our children. The Super Bowl show, which contained Janet Jackson grabbing her breasts, Nelly repeatedly fondling his crotch, striptease cheerleaders, gyrating transvestites, simulated lesbian sex, a "performer" who wore the American Flag as a poncho, and Jackson and Justin Timberlake groping each other in addition to Jackson's exposed breast, was mild compared to other MTV programs.

get a life :angry:
 
Last edited:
You got it! JARWC! (Just another right wing conspiracy)

GWB operatives rigged this as a major distraction to all the things people hate about Bush!
 
I hope you're not putting those words in my mouth nbc, because that would make neither of us look good.
 
Dreadsox said:

Yes, they really are making a mountain out of a molehill. I mean, yeah, the incident was in terrible taste and showed a lack of originality, but now they are saying the controversy is racist? Gimme a break.
 
Justin is just a lame asshole who can't sing. As somebody once said, he is the musical equivalent of tofu - has no flavour, but you can make him taste like anything you want.

No racism here, just a sad attempt to direct all blame away from himself.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
So now covering your ass is racism?

I think Justin took the pansy way out by not admitting he knew what he was doing, but by no means is it racism.

Agreed.

And I agree with verte-this whole thing has gotten blown WAY out of proportion. Who knew that a two second flash of a breast would cause this much controversy?

Seriously, I just want this whole thing to be over and done with. We have way more important things in this country worth being riled up over.

Angela
 
anitram said:
Justin is just a lame asshole who can't sing. As somebody once said, he is the musical equivalent of tofu - has no flavour, but you can make him taste like anything you want.

No racism here, just a sad attempt to direct all blame away from himself.

:applaud: Absolutely. To me, it was fairly obvious that he enjoyed all the attention. After his past incidents involving Kylie et al, I can't take his apologies seriously.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
Seriously, I just want this whole thing to be over and done with. We have way more important things in this country worth being riled up over.

Angela

Honestly, I think the harrassment incident at our library a couple of weeks ago is more newsworthy than Janet's breast incident. This might sound egotistical, but I think harrassment in the workplace is a security issue that needs to be discussed; Janet's breast incident really is not. Where's the outrage when a library worker is afraid she is going to get stabbed or shot? A Birmingham library worker was killed in cold blood *at work* in November of 2002. I'm not trying to hijack this thread, just expressing an opinion about priorities in this society. They are screwy.
 
Last edited:
verte76 said:
Honestly, I think the harrassment incident at our library a couple of weeks ago is more newsworthy than Janet's breast incident. This might sound egotistical, but I think harrassment in the workplace is a security issue that needs to be discussed; Janet's breast incident really is not. Where's the outrage when a library worker is afraid she is going to get stabbed or shot? A Birmingham library worker was killed in cold blood *at work* in November of 2002. I'm not trying to hijack this thread, just expressing an opinion about priorities in this society. They are screwy.

Don't worry about hijacking this thread, you're absolutely right. That's definitely worth being concerned about. People should be able to go to work without fear their lives will be in danger. That library incident is an issue that actually affects other people, it's something that potentially harms people. A girl's breast being exposed for two seconds harms nobody in any way, shape, or form.

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
A girl's breast being exposed for two seconds harms nobody in any way, shape, or form.

Without disagreeing with you, this statement is why the issue is still in the news today. I'm sure you feel fairly comfortable making the blanket statement that no harm comes from the stunt. There are, however, people who feel differently. Should society, to some degree, be sensitive to their concerns?
 
nbcrusader said:
Without disagreeing with you, this statement is why the issue is still in the news today. I'm sure you feel fairly comfortable making the blanket statement that no harm comes from the stunt. There are, however, people who feel differently. Should society, to some degree, be sensitive to their concerns?

First I'd need to know what harm could possibly come from her breast being exposed for a couple of seconds. Nobody'd die. Nobody'd be injured. The worst that could happen is that a few people may be offended. But you know what I've said before about what offends some people doesn't offend others, and we can't censor every single thing that may potentially offend people. I don't expect people to censor the things that offend me. I just don't watch them.

Someone asked this on another board-what is it about the human body that freaks people out so much to begin with?

Angela
 
nbcrusader said:


Without disagreeing with you, this statement is why the issue is still in the news today. I'm sure you feel fairly comfortable making the blanket statement that no harm comes from the stunt. There are, however, people who feel differently. Should society, to some degree, be sensitive to their concerns?

I can see why some people aren't exactly pleased with Janet's stunt. A big shot celebrity does something that's not exactly virtuous--not cool. You have to tell your kids that it's not. Personally, I have more trouble with Viagra commercials than I do Janet's breast, but that's just me. I just happen to think that security threats in the workplace are worse than even Viagra commercials.
 
An interesting article in regards to this whole controversy that someone shared on another board:

Much Ado About A Small Matter
by Charley Reese

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese41.html

The baring of Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl halftime show was certainly a cheap, low-class, vulgar stunt. But cheap, low-class and vulgar apply to the majority of popular entertainment and advertising in the United States.

What did the National Football League expect when it hired MTV to produce the show? The Westminster Choir? MTV stands for Mostly Tasteless Viewing.

That said, declaring a woman's breast obscene and launching a federal investigation shows you how bizarre and crazy this country has become. If a woman's breast is obscene, then what is the federal government going to do about millions of suckling babes? Perhaps arrest them all for participating in an obscene act.

It was a stunt. The Federal Communications Commission should simply fine CBS and MTV and be done with it. What is there to investigate? Presumably nearly 90 million people saw it. Whether it was planned or not is beside the point. CBS and MTV are responsible for the actions of their hired help. But it's no big deal.

Surely, not even in TV land, is there anyone out there superstitious enough to believe that the mere sight of a bare breast will cause harm to his or her body or soul. Surely we have gotten beyond the point where anyone considers a naked human body to be obscene. After all, religious people believe it was created in God's image.

Sometimes I think scientists should quit searching for intelligent life in outer space and see if they can find any on this planet. President Bush, who has gotten us into two undeclared wars, is worried about athletes taking steroids. Odd, since when he was a baseball club owner, he apparently had no interest in the subject.

Now Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, who is willing to let big corporations devour what's left of a free press in this country, claims he was highly offended by a fleeting glimpse of a pasty-covered nipple.

Presumably the whole nation must now concentrate on one bare breast and a bunch of steroid-using athletes. They, by the way, are not the only people who have taken these drugs. Try police departments and the military, both now officially designated as heroes, or visit your local health club.

I suggest that there are other things besides bulging muscles and a bare breast that should concern the political leadership in this country. A few of them are: 35 million people living in poverty; the federal deficit; the U.S. trade deficit; the hemorrhaging of jobs to cheap-labor countries; the $2 trillion debt consumers are now carrying; the lack of a national health-insurance program; trying to find a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan; passing a fair and intelligible tax code that isn't written by lobbyists for the rich; and stopping the massive migration, both legal and illegal, into this country.

As for the vulgarity on television, turn it off. As for the vulgarity in the movies, don't go. Nobody in America is being force-fed this stuff. Perhaps it is we, the American people, who have become vulgar, low-class and without taste. After all, that's where egalitarianism usually leads. The mob has never produced great literature, great art or great music. It has always produced pretty much what you see in the pop culture today ? the mindless fawning over the untalented.

I'm reminded of a stern, unreconstructed Southern minister who opposed public education, arguing that if you teach everyone to read, all you will do is create a mass market for trash literature.

Hopefully, there are still Americans who are intelligent and well-educated, and who have the ability to set priorities, clearly define problems and organize people's efforts to solve them. Hopefully, there are millions of Americans who, while they might have been offended by the inappropriate venue, recognize that a bare breast is not a national issue or a proper subject of a federal investigation.

Thank God for hope.


Angela
 
nbcrusader said:

There are, however, people who feel differently. Should society, to some degree, be sensitive to their concerns?


Are you an officially designated special interest group? If not....no
 
Last edited:
Moonlit_Angel said:
what is it about the human body that freaks people out so much to begin with?

Nothing, that's why I watch Sue Johanson's Sex Talk. But seriously, I wanted to see Janet's nipple ring about as much as I'd want to see my dad's balls. :barf:

I think the real issue is not that a breast was flashed on TV; that's merely incidental. The issue is that MTV put on the most tasteless, talentless, sexually gratuitous, inappropriate halftime show ever and Janet's "malfunction" was the icing on the ghetto booty cake. There's a difference between appreciating the human body and humping each other on national TV.
 
Let me ask a question none of the media or at least this thread has covered, and it is out of curiosity, what is offensive about it?
All I've read is replies on why it shouldn't be, also in the media, people writing about how silly it is and far fetched.
I am curious to hear what exactly is the problem, from those who have the issue with it.
Anyone?
 
:hyper: :hyper: :hyper:

:combust:

Wow.....I am going to visit this thread more often now. My childhood sweetie...
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
I think the real issue is not that a breast was flashed on TV; that's merely incidental. The issue is that MTV put on the most tasteless, talentless, sexually gratuitous, inappropriate halftime show ever and Janet's "malfunction" was the icing on the ghetto booty cake. There's a difference between appreciating the human body and humping each other on national TV.

And people expected anything different from MTV because...? I mean, MTV's never really been known to be, nor claimed to be, an innocent cable channel, so when people heard that they were in control of the halftime show this year...people should've known better.

And good question, Angela Harlem.

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


And people expected anything different from MTV because...? I mean, MTV's never really been known to be, nor claimed to be, an innocent cable channel, so when people heard that they were in control of the halftime show this year...people should've known better.


Yeah, no kidding. This whole incident really means nothing to me b/c I hate MTV, I hate Janet, Jessia, Justin, Nelly, and Kid Rock, and I hate the Superbowl...I hate professional leagues in general. So I guess my instinctive response to the whole ordeal would be "figures".

In response to Angela Harlem, I think it is offensive because if we decide it's OK for dancers dressed like ho-bags to grind everyone in sight, and it's OK for women to flaunt their nipples at the SUPERBOWL than it must be OK for this to be on primetime TV. Where do we draw the line? Why not make porno channels part of basic cable then? I think it's rediculous that MTV has to stoop to this level to create a show they think people will enjoy. What about groups like U2 that can blow everyone else out of the water, yet they're not dancing about with their wangs flapping for all of creation to "appreciate"? It's more unnecessary than it is offensive, at least for me.
 
Back
Top Bottom