CBS Retracts Apology for Jackson's Super Bowl Exposure

As I’m sure you all remember, Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson’s 2004 Super Bowl debacle caused literally hundreds of thousands of viewers to call CBS, FCC, MTV and sponsors to complain. Viewers were disgusted and vocalized loud and clear that CBS had not only brought wretchedness into everyone’s living room but also violated the laws that govern our public airwaves. CBS’s subsequent claim that they didn’t know that Justin was going to rip off Janet’s clothes was about as believable as Clinton’s “I never inhaled.” Despite CBS’ feigned ignorance, they apologized profusely and publicly.

CBS delayed paying their indecency fine ($550,000) until the last possible day before the deadline, well over two years after Justin’s tore Janet’s clothes. Immediately after paying the penalty for their egregious violation of decency laws, CBS proved to us all how feigned their apology really was.

Many people may not know that CBS has actually launched an aggressive lawsuit to overturn the fine, claiming there was absolutely nothing indecent at all about Justin’s singing “gonna have you naked by the end of this song” then ripping Janet’s shirt to expose her breast.   CBS is claiming and fighting that they have a right to produce nudity and vulgarity any time of day, on any show and for any viewing audience, completely disregarding everyone’s concerns for children. In another lawsuit, the network is suing so they can air the f- and s- words in addition.

The vast majority of Americans and Congress support the recent legislation to increase broadcast indecency fines. But obviously, the CBS team is not listening and is instead pursuing their own rogue agenda. Their goal? Produce the most offensive material possible to prove their own destructive and misguided point: that they can strategically and methodically breakdown the fibers of decency in our culture. They continue to do so by producing increasing volumes of publicly consumable material that not only disregards but is strategically designed to offend your decency, character,  intelligence, and your hard work and thoughtful guidance as a parent.  It’s as if CBS’ CEO Leslie Moonves’ personal goal were “I want to destroy, because I can. And you just better get out of my way.” 

But I'm afraid Moonves and his pack of offensive and arrogant executives are of an era that is fizzling away. The Boomer generation, of which Moonves is a part, may run the boardrooms these days but they increasingly garner no respect from the average American living room. In fact, most Americans want CBS and Moonves' indecency out of their family so they can be part of a healthy and respectful society. I suggest that Moonves retract the CBS lawsuit and instead hire leaders and production talent who want to build rather than destroy our communities.

Comments

[wendy]

Jeannine,

I did not know about this lawsuit--very interesting (and troubling). Obviously, you are right; they're either sorry or they're not. Please keep us posted on developments, as I'm sure a lot of people will want to follow this.

[Debbie]

Jeannine, where can I read more about the lawsuit?

[megan]

Hi, I was wondering if you could provide the data to back up your claims that (1) "[t]he vast majority of Americans and Congress support the recent legislation to increase broadcast indecency fines" and (2) "most Americans want CBS and Moonves' indecency out of their family so they can be part of a healthy and respectful society."

Thanks.

[Jeannine K.]

To answer Debbie's question. CBS filed in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

Here is one link with some information on it:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/\news.aspx?id=17222

They can also contact ParentsTV, they are following the case closely.

Phone:
213.629.9255
800.882.6868 (Toll-Free)

You could contact CBS directly. But, as far as I can discern from a search on the internet, I don't think CBS put a Press Release out about it. Probably for obvious reasons that they don't want more public attention, but I could be wrong. If someone knows that CBS presented a press release about it, let me know. I can include the link here.

I will address Megan's question too, hopefully later today when I have more time to detail.

[Debbie]

Thanks, Jeannine. On the first amendment site that you mention, I read that the FCC is now reconsidering many of its rulings. This about-face occurred because an Appeals Court would have reversed the rulings. They were apparently inconsistent, and the FCC did not solicit the required responses from broadcasters. It seems there is more to the CBS lawsuit than a fine over the Janet Jackson debacle.

[Jeannine K.]

Megan is curious regarding my use of the word "vast." Having been a math major and spending many hours proving probability and multivariable calculus theorems, solving statistic problems as homework, I do have a deep awareness of the often exaggerated or inaccurate statistics of many writers. So I do appreciate Megan’s question. For length reasons, I single out only the following in support – however, there are other data supporting my remark.

In May of this year, in reflection of a "vast" movement, this year the US Senate passed unanimously without amendment and without dissent, increased fines for violations of broadcasting decency. The House followed suit, passing legislation in a 379 to 35 vote.

In an election year, it is very hard to get anything passed with such overwhelming bi-partisan support in both the Senate and the House. The fact that this issue was passed without dissent in the Senate and near unanimously in the House reflects that the vast majority of Americans who are active participants in our communities are in fact concerned for the well being of their families. They apparently desire a respectful culture and want the penalties for violating the current broadcast decency laws enforced. Simple as that. Gratefully, the US Congress did listen; the penalties increased significantly, 10 times their prior value.

There is so much noise in Washington that any movement must be "vast" to get that much consensus, especially when there are millions of Hollywood lobbying dollars funding the opposing position led by the major networks, Cable providers etc. Despite the fact that there are comparatively so few dollars behind what is largely a volunteer effort, the concerned, active, respectful volunteers are winning by sheer strength and clarity.

Clearly there are Americans at home slouched in front of Nip/Tuck and porn sites, but the rest of us are out helping our communities, having dinner with our family, going to a game, watching kids in sports, volunteering, helping a friend. I’m pleased to call the latter "vast," even if I haven’t run a regression analysis on it. A simple regression is obvious: those opposing that vast movement are in a cultural regression.

Yet, to discuss the numbers further, in an earlier post, I shared the statistic that the child pornography industry in this country is currently $20 billion, expected to be $30 billon by 2009, 6 times the global revenue of Starbucks. Our culture is consuming child pornography more often than a cup of coffee. I also call that problem "vast." Is that a contradictory statement to the use of “vast” on my post?

Perhaps CBS’ Moonves, FX, Cable producers etc. are more in line with this latter clump of Americans? I hope not. But reading the scripts of their lobbied-for shows would lead you to believe that it just might be the case. As examples of some of the content the heavily-funded broadcasting lobbyists consider decent, I include links to some scripts. Please take note, most folks find this content offensive.

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/campaigns/rescueme/main.asp
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/campaigns/rescueme/summaries.htm
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/campaigns/niptuck/main.asp
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/campaigns/niptuck/summaries.htm
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/campaigns/niptuck/archives.htm

I could also elaborate on the advertising statistics but that is an entire article in itself. I make only one point. If you pay attention carefully you will note an increasing number of advertisers are disassociating themselves from the shows that have the most offensive content. The list of advertisers who have dropped ads from offensive productions include T-Mobile, Dairy Queen, Alltel, Bridgestone Firestone, Mitsubishi Motors, State Farm, and others.

I could keep going with data in support…but this is already long, even for the Internet!

[megan]

Thanks for the response, but I am still a bit confused. I thought you had statistical data that showed what "most Americans" think about broadcast decency standards since you used the phrase "in fact" several times.

I do not think that you can assume that since Congress passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (which was amended twice, by the way), a vast majority Americans agree with that bill, especially in an election year. It is common for Congress to pass bills in an election year that will appeal to certain motivated interest groups rather than the electorate as a whole. Issues that cause a furor in Washington are often of lesser concern to everyday Americans, who routinely find their elected officials out of touch.

Do you find the material broadcast on television today to be largely offensive? Undoubtedly. Do many of your friends and associates find the material broadcast on television today to be offensive? Probably. However, if you want to argue that a vast majority of Americans think this or that, please produce statistical (not anecdotal) evidence.

Three other brief points:

First, please remember that the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act regulates only broadcast television, not cable television on which programs such as Nip/Tuck and Rescue Me are shown.

Second, I am concerned with your assumption that there is one group of Americans that chooses to watch Nip/Tuck and then there is a separate group of Americans that chooses instead to have family dinner, play with their kids and be active in their communities. I imagine that there are people who do both; again, your anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to make generalizations of this sort.

Third, child pornography is indeed terrible, a point on which we can likely agree. However, I am not sure the relevance of your point regarding the child pornography business to this discussion.

[Jeannine K.]

Megan, I have a feeling we disagree on whether prime time television, whether cable or the major networks, are producing garbage or not. Seems to me you just might like Nip/Tuck? Do you enjoy that show? I guess I just wouldn’t take pride as a parent if that was on my list of “must sees.” Regardless, it seems you and I likely have an underlying difference of which any data may not convince you otherwise.

Nonetheless, I have great respect for your desire for facts. So here is some data:

A December Associated Press poll found 66 percent of those surveyed said there was too much sex on TV, and 68 percent said there was too much violence. Other polls have pegged public disgust in the 80 and 90 percent levels. Nearly two-thirds are bothered by the obscene language they hear. The latter data is from ParentsTV research. If you doubt that, contact them directly. I have followed their work and have appreciation for their thoroughness. If you don’t, please contact them directly for further detail.

Below are more data, but I have just a few other related comments before the presented data.

Underlying my post is the belief that the content of prime time television, times when many children are in fact watching, is primarily offensive and increasingly so. The fact that many children are viewing those shows possibly supports your doubts that many parents aren’t concerned at all. (I have included data below that shows otherwise regarding parents’ concerns.)

Overall, I’m not sure your determination to prove me wrong proves anything except that you hold an underlying interest in proving that Americans are not offended. In doing so, I’m not sure what else is accomplished except helping drive indifference which, in the end, drives everyone to the lowest common cultural denominator. I don’t prefer that leadership effort. You can take that lead towards decline. I personally wouldn’t have pride in doing so. I think being offended by broadcasters who completely disregard the damaging impact of the images to which children are being exposed is a good thing.

If my assumptions are wrong, I am saddened for what it implies of our culture. It seems you would be happy?

But I have included more data below to support my concern, as well as my implied data. It also includes data that support my overall concern regarding the impact.

You doubt my comparison to the consumption of pornography. The reference is valid – on another post I wrote of a vast problem regarding the consumption of pornography, in particular child pornography. On this post, I claimed that a vast majority were opposed to the sludge produced by the networks and cable providers. If you understand numbers, you can realize that I had a problem in my summation of data there, and my potentially conflicting use of the word vast. I was admitting a problem in my data, and was briefly addressing it by determination of sets. But maybe you missed that nuance. Instead, you chose to knock down my admission. That leads me to believe that perhaps you have a hidden agenda here, as you weren’t even taking an open door. Or perhaps missed the implied concern regarding statistics?

Legal precedent for the public opinion: The broadcasters are determined to battle whether First Amendment has any limits for broadcasters. This is despite that fact that there are long-standing legal precedents for limits as established by the Supreme Court. Even liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has declared that the First Amendment limits are greatest for broadcasters.

Here is the data:
• A new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 75% of the 1,505 adults polled from March 17-21 would like to see tighter enforcement of government rules on broadcast content, particularly when children are most likely to be watching; 60% want broadcast TV indecency standards extended to cable TV; and 69% want higher fines for media companies.
• In a recent (03.20.05) Time Magazine Poll 53 percent of respondents said that they think the FCC should place stricter controls on broadcast-channel shows depicting sex and violence. 68 percent believe the entertainment industry has lost touch with viewers' moral standards. 66 percent said there is too much violence on open-air TV, 58 percent said too much cursing and 50 percent said there is too much sexual content on TV. 49 percent say FCC regulation should be extended to cover basic cable.
• ABC's Desperate Housewives is the most popular broadcast-network television show with kids aged 9-12 according to Nielsen stats. It airs at 10/9. (Jan. 05)
• According to Nielsen the top TV shows for 12-17 year old girls were: American Idol, The O.C., Will & Grace, and One Tree Hill. The top TV shows for 12-17 year old boys were: The Simpsons, Malcolm, and The O.C.
• 2004 Super Bowl: Nielsen estimates that 6.6 million kids 2-11 were watching at about the time that CBS's little halftime fiasco developed when Justin Timberlake ripped off a piece of Jackson's bodice, exposing her right breast to the nationwide audience. Another 7.3 million teens 12-17 were tuned in at that time as well.
• On December 10th, 2003, Fox failed to bleep the f-word and the s-word during the Billboard Music Awards.
# of 2-11 yr olds Watching = Over 1 million
# of 12-17 yr olds Watching = Over 1 Million
These two groups comprised more than 20% of the total viewing audience.
• Estimated number of TV homes: 109.6 million
• Average time kids spend watching TV each day: 4 Hours
• Children spend more time watching television than in any other activity except sleep. - Huston and Wright, University of Kansas. "Television and Socialization of Young Children."
• 54% of kids have a TV in their bedroom. - Ibid
• 44% of kids say they watch something different when they're alone than with their parents (25% choose MTV)
• 66% of children (ages 10 to 16) surveyed say that their peers are influenced by TV shows
• 62% say that sex on TV shows and movies influences kids to have sex when they are too young
• 77% say there is too much sex before marriage on television
• 65% say that shows like The Simpsons and Married… With Children encourage kids to disrespect parents.
• Witnessing repeated violent acts can lead to desensitization and a lack of empathy for human suffering
• Television alone is responsible for 10% of youth violence. - Leonard Eron, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Michigan
• According to the American Psychiatric Association, "The debate is over… For the last three decades, the one predominant finding in research on the mass media is that exposure to media portrayals of violence increases aggressive behavior in children."
• A majority of parents say they are "very" concerned about the amount of sex (60%) and violence (53%) their children are exposed to on TV. After being read arguments on both sides of the issue, nearly two-thirds of parents (63%) say they favor new regulations to limit the amount of sex and violence in TV shows during the early evening hours, when children are most likely to be watching (35% are opposed). - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.
• A majority (55%) of parents say ratings should be displayed more prominently and 57% say they'd rather keep the current rating systems than switch to a single rating for TV, movies, video games, and music (34% favor the single rating). - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.
• About half (52%) of all parents say most TV shows are rated accurately, while about four in ten (39%) say most are not. - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.
• Many parents don't understand what the various ratings guidelines mean. For example, 28% of parents of young children (2-6 years old) know what the rating TV-Y7 means (directed to children age 7 and older) while 13% think it means the opposite (directed to children under 7); and only 12% know that the rating FV ("fantasy violence") is related to violent content, while 8% think it means "family viewing." - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.
• Fifteen percent of all parents have used the V-Chip, which was required to be included in all TV sets over 13 inches after January 2000; one in four (26%) haven't bought a new TV since then, 39% have bought a new TV, but don't think it includes a V-Chip, and 20% know they have a V-Chip, but haven't used it. Among those who have a V-Chip and know it, 42% have used it. Nearly two-thirds (61%) of parents who have used the V-Chip say they found it "very" useful. - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.
• When read the competing arguments for subjecting cable TV to the same content standards as broadcasters, half of all parents (52%) say that cable should be treated the same, while 43% say it should not. - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.
• A study of 1792 adolescents ages 12-17 showed that watching sex on TV influences teens to have sex. Youths who watched more sexual content where more likely to initiate intercourse and progress to more advanced noncoital sexual activities in the year following the beginning of the study. Youths in the 90th percentile of TV sex viewing had a predicted probability of intercourse initiation that was approximately double that of youths in the 10th percentile. Basically, kids with higher exposure to sex on TV were almost twice as likely than kids with lower exposure to initiate sexual intercourse. - Study Conducted by RAND and published in the September 2004 issue of Pediatrics.
• 46% of high school students in the United States have had sexual intercourse. Although sex is common, most sexually active teens wish they had waited longer to have sex, which suggest that sex is occurring before youths are prepared for its consequences. 1 case of an STD is diagnosed for every 4 sexually active teens.
• In a sample of programming from the 2001-2002 TV season, sexual content appeared in 64% of all TV programs. Those programs with sexually related material had an average of 4.4 scenes per hour. Talk of sex is more frequent (61%) vs. overt portrayals (32%). 1 out of every 7 programs includes a portrayal of sexual intercourse.
• Portrayals that included sexual risks (stds or becoming pregnant), abstinence or need for sexual safety was depicted in 15% of the shows with sexual content. Hence, sexual content on TV is more likely to promote sexual activity among US adolescents that it is to discourage it.
• Factors positively associated with initiation of intercourse among virgins are: Watching Sex on TV, having older friends, getting low grades, engaging in deviant behavior. Positive factors for virgins to abstain are: parental monitoring, parent education, living with both parents, having parents who would disprove of adolescent sex, being religious, and having good mental health.
• "In a recent national survey conducted by Nielsen (4/29/04), 78% of American families who had recently been part of the Nielsen 'People Meter' panel wanted more shows 'without profanity or swear words.'
• "In a national opinion poll conducted for TV Guide (8/2/03), 57% of TV viewers said they 'noticed an increase in offensive material on television lately.'"
• "In a national opinion poll conducted for Common Sense Media ("New Attempt to Monitor Media Content," NY Times, 5/21/03), 64% of parents with at least one child between the ages of 2 and 17 believed media products in general were inappropriate for their families. Only one in five parents 'fully trusted' the industry-controlled rating systems.
• "In a national survey by Public Agenda ("Parents feel they’re failing to teach values," USA TODAY, 10/30/02), 'about 90% [of parents] say TV programs are getting worse every year because of bad language and adult themes in shows that air from 8 to 10 p.m.'
• Over 1000 studies - including a Surgeon General's special report in 1972 and a National Institute of Mental Health report 10 years later - attest to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children. Studies show that the more "real-life" the violence portrayed, the greater the likelihood that it will be "learned." - American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement, Volume 95, Number 6 - June 1995
• By age 18, a U.S. youth will have seen 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence. - American Psychiatric Association
• The average youth living in the U.S. watches television 25 hours a week and plays computer games an additional seven hours. - National Institute on Media and the Family, 1998 study
• Media violence may cause aggressive and antisocial behavior, desensitize viewers to future violence and increase perceptions that they are living "in a mean and dangerous world." - American Academy of Pediatrics
• Children younger than 8 "cannot uniformly discriminate between real life and fantasy/entertainment… They quickly learn that violence is an acceptable solution to resolving even complex problems, particularly if the aggressor is the hero." - ibid
• "Violence is like the nicotine in cigarettes. The reason why the media has to pump ever more violence into us is because we've built up a tolerance. In order to get the same high, we need ever-higher levels… The television industry has gained its market share through an addictive and toxic ingredient." - Lt. Col. David Grossman quoted in The Arizona Republic, May 27, 1999 by Tim Madigan, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, A18.
• Two overviews of existing studies conducted by the Surgeon General's office in 1972 and 1982 called television violence "a contributing factor to increases in violent crime and antisocial behavior." - May 9, 1999. The New York Times. Lawrie Mifflin. "Many Researchers Say Link is Already Clear on Media and Youth Violence."
• "Not every child who watches a lot of violence or plays a lot of violent games will grow up to be violent. Other forces must converge, as they did recently in Colorado. But just as every cigarette increases the chance that someday you will get lung cancer, every exposure to violence increases the chances that some day a child will behave more violently than they otherwise would." - Ibid Attributed to L. Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
• "A steady diet of violent content over time creates a culture that tells kids that violence is the accepted way we solve our problems." - Ibid - Attributed to Kathryn C. Montgomery, President of the Center for Media Education.
• Television violence can lead to imitation
• The cumulative impact of violence-laden imagery can lead to a "mean-world" perspective, in which viewers have an unrealistically dark view of life. - The Christian Science Monitor, November 18, 1996
• Television reaches children at a younger age and for more time than any other socializing institution except the family. - Ibid
• Research has shown that "mindless" television or video games may idle and impoverish the development of the pre-frontal cortex, or that portion of the brain that is responsible for planning, organizing and sequencing behavior for self-control, moral judgment and attention. - American Academy of Pediatrics - Understanding TV's effects on the developing brain, Jane M. Healy, Ph.D. (From May 1998 AAP News)
• Children often behave differently after they've been watching violent programs on television. Children who watched violent shows were more likely to strike out at playmates, argue, disobey authority and were less willing to wait for things that children who watched nonviolent programs. - American Psychological Association, Family and Relationships -Get the Facts: Children and Television Violence
• Reducing the amount of time grade-school children spend watching television games and watching television can make them less aggressive toward their peers. - Stanford Report, January 14, 2001 -Limiting TV viewing reduces aggression in children, study says by Krista Conger
• In considering decisions about contraceptives, STDs and sexual health choices, teens are almost as likely to get their information from TV (60%) as from a health care provider (62%). - Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/23/01
• 86% of Britons feel their government should step in to regulate sexually explicit television and magazine images aimed at children, according to a BBC poll of more than 1,000 people. While the strongest support came from 55- to 64-year-olds (92%), a surprising 78% of 18- to 24-year-olds also believe tougher restrictions are necessary to discourage adolescent sex. Britain is currently experiencing a surge in STDs (up 57 percent from 1995) and HIV cases (up 20 percent from last year), along with a rising rate of teenage pregnancies. [Telegraph.co.uk, 9/7/04 stats]
A list of more studies:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/outsidestudies/main.asp

But I’m curious, if I am wrong, I’m just curious why it is so important for you to prove that Americans are not offended by the below.

A content analysis of children’s programming:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/childrensstudy/main.asp

MTV Content:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/mtv2005/main.asp

Cable content:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/2004cablestudy/main.asp

Disappointing facts regarding the V-chip:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/release/2005/0811.asp

[RulsapoX]

Hello!
Solo >> Mandy's Diary
Gorgeous 18 year old prim and proper ladies get ready for sex for the very first time!

[url=http://fatazu.no.sapo.pt/shot.html]peter north cum shots[/url]
[url=http://fatyck.no.sapo.pt/fuck.html]akron i wanna fuck you[/url]
[url=http://fatlnx.no.sapo.pt/cheerleaders.html]nfl cheerleaders nude[/url]
[url=http://fatckn.no.sapo.pt/single.html]dating match.com online relationships singles love service[/url]