February 5, 2005
AND WE THOUGHT THE SLIPPERY SLOPE WAS A CONSERVATIVE SPECIALTY.
The Year of Living Indecently (Frank Rich, New York Times, February 6th, 2005)
Let us be grateful that Janet Jackson did not bare both breasts.On the first anniversary of the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction that shook the world, it's clear that just one was big enough to wreak havoc. The ensuing Washington indecency crusade has unleashed a wave of self-censorship on American television unrivaled since the McCarthy era, with everyone from the dying D-Day heroes in "Saving Private Ryan" to cuddly animated animals on daytime television getting the ax. Even NBC's presentation of the Olympics last summer, in which actors donned body suits to simulate "nude" ancient Greek statues, is currently under federal investigation.
Public television is now so fearful of crossing its government patrons that it is flirting with self-immolation. Having disowned lesbians in the children's show "Postcards From Buster" and stripped suspect language from "Prime Suspect" on "Masterpiece Theater," PBS is editing its Feb. 23 broadcast of "Dirty War," the HBO-BBC film about a terrorist attack, to remove a glimpse of female nudity in a scene depicting nuclear detoxification. Next thing you know they'll be snipping lascivious flesh out of a documentary about Auschwitz.
This repressive cultural environment was officially ratified on Nov. 2, when Ms. Jackson's breast pulled off its greatest coup of all: the re-election of President Bush. Or so it was decreed by the media horde that retroactively declared "moral values" the campaign's decisive issue and the Super Bowl the blue states' Waterloo. The political bosses of "family" organizations, well aware that TV's collective wisdom becomes reality whether true or not, have been emboldened ever since. They are spending their political capital like drunken sailors, redoubling their demands that the Bush administration marginalize gay people, stamp out sex education and turn pop culture into a continuous loop of "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm."
So indignant is Mr. Rich at being deprived of his simulated sexual assault during this year’s Super Bowl that he neglects to tell us who or what exactly he thinks he is fighting for. Old time liberals used to argue this sort of thing from the perspective of putative artistic or cultural merit, but that’s getting tougher to do in our dumbed down pornographic age. Today the tactic of choice seems to be to fulminate and hurl incoherent charges of oppression at anyone who thinks there should be limits on sexual expression during prime time television.
Posted by Peter Burnet at February 5, 2005 6:53 PMNext thing you know they'll be snipping lascivious flesh out of a documentary about Auschwitz.
What point does he think he's making?
Posted by: David Cohen at February 5, 2005 7:55 PMThe indomitable Howard Veit, rambling on sbout Sumner Redstone, of all people:
" I'd only value his support if I was producing the next sexually explicit half time show at a terrorist execution."
Viacom CEO now supporting Bush
Sexual preference lessons for kids in the age group "Buster" is intended for comes across as adults pushing a message on an age group that really has no need to be burdened with those kind of issues. And for someone prattling on about Janet's halftime escapade, has Frank Rich ever gone to or watched an entire football game in his life? It's not the same demographic that hits the trendy off-Broadway theater performances.
Posted by: John at February 5, 2005 11:09 PMMr. Rich is too cheap to pay for cable, and this is somehow America's fault.
Posted by: carter at February 6, 2005 2:05 AMCarter, be easy on him. Rich is down to a less than once a week column in the 'Arts' section, he probably can't afford cable.
Let me make this so simple that a liberal arts major from Harvard, like Frank Rich, can understand it. The Super Bowl is the showcase event of the most popular sport in America, and virtually the entire nation stops to watch it.(If you don't believe me, just look at the Nielsens) That means viewers from 9 to 90, male and female. Thus, anything not related to the game itself, like commercials and halftime shows, must be geared to a broad audience, designed to appeal to a large bulk of people. In a free market, as they say, time is money and all time at the Super Bowl is outrageously expensive. You can probably buy your own Third World nation for less than a 30 second commercial on the Super Bowl will cost.
What this all means is that when you get your airtime at the Super Bowl, you don't want to make any mistakes. About the biggest mistake you can make is to alienate or anger a significant percentage of the audience(Just ask the Monday Night Football producers). A large percentage, if not most, Americans believe that it is inappropriate for women to bare their breasts when young children may be watching. To Frank Rich, those people may be rubes or bigots or peasants or, even worse, Christians, but to the people buying the ad time, they are customers. In America, we have a saying, 'The customer is always right.'
Frank Rich, who has obviously never run anything other than his mouth, just doesn't get it.
Posted by: Bart at February 6, 2005 8:22 AMFrank Rich should start a pressure group. He could call it: "Saving Ryan's Privates"
Posted by: Randall Voth at February 6, 2005 9:32 AM