The breast

On 1 February 2004, Super Bowl XXXVIII was played in Houston, Texas. The New England Patriots beat the Carolina Panthers 32-29. But that's not what matters. What history will remember that date for is, of course, Janet Jackson's boobs. Specifically, her right one, which was decorated with an ornate, sun-shaped nipple shield (a metal decoration secured with a nipple ring). During the game's half time show, Janet's breast was revealed to the world in all its (quite possibly surgically-enhanced) glory.

You see, CBS broadcast the game, and its fellow Viacom subsidiary MTV produced the half time show, starring pop musicians Justin Timberlake (formerly of *NSYNC, now of equally-crappy solo albums) and Janet Jackson (frighteningly enough, quite possibly the sanest member of the Jackson clan). They performed a duet of Timberlake's unpleasant song "Rock Your Body", while writhing like teenagers at a high school prom, even if Miss Jackson (since I'm nasty) is more the age of a high school teacher than a student.

As they reached the end of the crappy song, Justin sang the line "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song" — and, suiting actions to words, tore open Janet's costume, revealing her breast to the viewing world. CBS switched as quickly as they could to an aerial shot of the stadium, but it was too late: for a brief moment, everyone watching saw Janet Jackson's breast.

Let me repeat that for the hard-of-seeing.

Holy freaking hell! Janet Jackson's breast!

It goes without saying that the Super Bowl's viewing audience — groups of guys enjoying beer and nachos, sports aficionados, media junkies who tune in just for the commercials, and yes, families — were deeply traumatized. Families, families with young children, sitting down together to enjoy a wholesome day's entertainment were subjected to a brief glimpse of an aging pop tart's rack. Even if you couldn't see much, as much of the breast was obscured by Janet's nipple shield, those with quick eyes could quite possibly have made out her nipple on the TV screen. The rest of us had to settle for scrutinizing the hundreds and hundreds of media outfits that showed pictures of it the next day.

The aftermath

It wasn't really all that impressive — a brief glance at a breast that, with the exception of a quarter-inch across circle of nipple was no more uncovered than what we see in body wash commercials fer crissakes — but the important part was, of course, the children. "Think of the children!" hollered the televangelists and pundits. You see, a child — perhaps only a few years weaned from his own mother's milkbags — would no doubt be scarred for life by the incredibly brief glimpse it got of Janet Jackson's nipple.

What with the furor that filled the media (and only the media, as far as I can tell — I certainly haven't met a single person who cared about Janet's tit beyond perhaps thinking it was a tacky stunt), everybody started apologizing. CBS apologized. MTV apologized. AOL, which sponsored half time, apologized. The NFL apologized. And naturally, the performers apologized. Janet claimed that it was a deliberate stunt, but a red lace bra was supposed to cover her naughty bit. And Justin Timberlake's statement launched a million lame stand-up comedy routines when he claimed that what happened was a "wardrobe malfunction". Skepticism reigns, of course — in my own humble opinion, the equipment Janet was wearing on her breast couldn't have been real comfortable rubbing against tight clothes during active dancing, so I can only assume it was there to be shown off. It seems more likely to me that it was quite a deliberate exhibition, and the stars were simply unprepared for the moralistic outrage that got directed at them in its wake.

But even as everybody involved in the "malfunction" distanced themselves from it, worthless media whores of every ilk were only getting started. On 4 February 2004, some obnoxious, attention-seeking bitch named Terri Carlin filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of "all American citizens who watched the outrageous conduct." She ended up dropping it. But someone had to pay for this wickedness anyway. Unfortunately, that someone was everyone else in the media, and by extension, all Americans, since we depend on the media as a vehicle for communication and ideas.

The FCC, which has the ability to fine broadcasters for such shocking affronts to common decency after the fact, only could levy a maximum $27,500 fine for an act of indecency. In 2005 this maximum was raised to $375,000. Fear began to spread over the consequences of media indecency. Clear Channel Communications pulled Howard Stern off the air (he's now found on Sirius Satellite Radio). Viacom ended up paying $3.5 million in fines for the event, and time-delays have become de rigeur for all sorts of live events, from sporting events to awards shows. Super Bowl XXXIX, broadcast on Fox, eschewed all sorts of advertisements perceived as racy, which is unfortunate as the Super Bowl is regarded as the biggest event of the year in television advertising and many people watch specifically in order to see the commercials.

We were spared, then, the sight of Mickey Rooney's naked ass during a rejected commercial from Super Bowl XXXIX. But soon the FCC's commissioner started talking about cracking down on nudity during daytime TV, which meant that soap operas were required to edit out or avoid scenes involving rear nudity, which had gradually become acceptable. An episode of Star Trek: Enterprise that had already been filmed was similarly edited.

The consequences

What the wardrobe malfunction led to, in other words, was a chilling effect on what the media are willing to show. Greatly increased penalties for indecency and increased scrutiny of TV and radio shows mean that networks are frightened to show material that they fear may be considered risqué. The FCC — under the long-held legal restriction on prior restraint — can't really issue clear guidelines about what's acceptable and what's not, since that would violate the First Amendment. So broadcasters are required to be overly cautious, since they don't know whether content will violate standards until they get fined for it.

It's not a major assault to our rights if bra commercials show a little less T&A — but it sets a scary precedent if the government begins to take a more active role in deciding what private broadcasters are allowed to show and what they're not. There's good reason to set some sort of standard — the legal reasoning is based on the notion that the airwaves are public property and thus some public regulation of them is acceptable. And few would like to see all standards disappear. But that's not to say that the media can't regulate themselves more effectively than the government can, since the anger over violations of "decency" ends up costing the networks money when people tune out.

The media have a strong role in policing the government. The Fourth Estate exists in large part to monitor the government and keep the citizenry informed so that we can better exercise our rights under democracy. Empowering the government with more ability to regulate the media doesn't seem like a very good idea. Sadly, Janet Jackson's tit is having lasting effects on what all of us are allowed to see on TV.

Sources

"Apologetic Jackson says 'costume reveal' went awry". CNN. 3 February 2004.
"Justin & Janet: Out of Control". E Online. 1 February 2004.
"FCC chair vows to investigate halftime flash". MSNBC. 4 February 2004.