Leo wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:42:25 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:

It was pretty accurate and intelligently written, actually! But I
assume from your statement that it didn't agree with your own
viewpoint, as it too is "wrong".

I consider the points it makes accurate enough, but it makes glaring
errors too.

The biggest one is the comparison between violence and sex. In it's own
context, I agree, there is a weirdness about how some of us accept
violence, but not sex.

But that ain't the argument.

If she were to become topless as an accident, I'd wager that the event
would be a momentary thing to talk about around the water cooler.
"That's the hazard of live TV" would be what people would say. "Poor
Janet! She must have been mortified!", would be another.

But since the whole thing was planned, and they lied about it
afterward, it changes the whole thing around. THAT has no place in a
halftime show.

Agreed. But it just ain't that big a deal.

Not to you. To other people it *is* a big deal. Not just the incident
itself,
but the incident as a symbol of how goofy the whole system is.

And to listen to people
like Spike Lee deriding the incident as possibly the worst thing that
has ever happened in the entertainment biz is absolutely imbecilic,
given the content of some of his own productions. But. these guys
know where the money comes from and how to stay on the right side of
public opinion.

Exactly! They're all playing the game to their best advantage.

Personally, I'd consider Kid Rock's treatment of the flag far more
disrespectful and tasteless - yet that got hardly any press at all.

Agreed. To my way of thinking it was downright obscene. And the
producers
must have known about it beforehand.

Or
the lyrics to some of the award-winning rap music - plenty of hate in
there....and racism, and violence, and immorality. But, they give
performers like Eminem big awards and big bucks to spread their
sinister messages of hate and apathy to our kids - and get big-time
upset over a televised breast, as if that would cause irreprable harm
to their young psyches and moral character. That's just stupid.

*Who* gives out those awards? Think about it - most of the showbiz
awards,
be they Grammys, Emmys, Oscars, GGs, Tonys or whatever, are given out
based on voting by industry insiders, not the general public or even a
subset (such as the viewing/moviegoing public). Kid Rock has never,
and now
will never, get a penny from me. Yet there's little I can do to stop
him
from getting awards for acting like a treasonous idiot.

Fact is, the shows have deteriorated in content over the last several
years, and a large portion of the audience doesn't like the emerging
format. They (we) are complaining, and they (we) have a right to. It
really isn't about sex versus violence. I no more want to see trashy,
sexually oriented "entertainment" during the superbowl halftime than I
want to see people being stabbed or hurt during it, or to have Peter
Popoff come out and do faith healing and ask for donations.

I'd prefer that they drop the entire halftime big talent show
entirely.

Agreed! Maybe they should run all the commercials at halftime - most
of them were far better than what little I saw of the show!

Remember when the SuperBowl was all about the game?

When was that? This year's game was the best I've seen in a long long
time.
The game itself, that is.

We can
thank our media friends for trying to jazz it up to appeal to the
largest number of viewers possible, in an effort to boost advertizing
revenues.

That's why it's called show *business*. And make no mistake -
professional athletics is nothing more than a form of show business.

Now, because of this incident, broadcasters are installing tape delay
equipment to ensure that inappropriate things are not aired.

Aw 'cmon, they have it already.

This is
not being done for the benefit of the public good, mind you - it is
being done so as to placate the advertizers, so that they don't end up
on the wrong side of public opinion and lose market share - and keep
those big bucks coming in.....

"What's good for General Bullmoose...."

Even the FCC has ruled that profanity is OK on broadcast services.

When did they do that?

Is this not more repugnant than a breast?

Depends on whose.

Hmmmm. Nice value system.

Where was the outcry a few years ago when Bono let loose a string of
expletives on the Grammys?

That was a few months ago. And there *was* an outcry - to the extent
that
The Congress is considering a bill to ban certain words on broadcast
TV and
radio. The list is almost identical to George Carlin's list. Of course
the
words are actually part of the bill....

That was at least an order of magnitude
worse than a televised breast, and a lot harder to explain to the
kids....where were the 7-second tape delays and prophesies of the end
of his career? But hey, there were no nasty body parts involved, so
that was OK.....

Tell it to the FCC.

And that is why I think the article is way off base.

Not sure that I agree, Mike - the point was, the breast thing was just
not that big a deal.
There are far worse things that society should
be concerned about - one need only look to the movies, video games or
even network TV to see that although sex has been somewhat removed
from our kids view, an incredible amount of graphic violence is pumped
out at them on a daily basis. That ain't good - and the impact on
society is well documented. All too frequently. With tragic results.

And the broadcasters have the same excuse they've used for years:
People *want* that stuff, because they vote with their channel
changers. It's all about
ratings, and if a show gets ratings, there's more of the same. Lots
more.

Last night ABC aired "Pearl Harbor", which I found to be a much better
film
than the reviews would lead one to expect. It was quite violent, but
the
violence served a purpose and in telling the story. And the violence
had real consequences to real people. Definitely not something you'd
want young kids to see. That's a different thing than the 'cartoon'
violence of many shows. (Any really good war film [Das Boot, Saving
Private Ryan] also turns out to be an
effective anti-war film, simply by being accurate). The danger isn't
the violence, it's not taking the violence seriously.

I take it you're not a Robbie Burns fan:

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!"

Sigh.....

You're wrong about that.

'Tis true, though - however difficult it may be.

Let me hold this mirror up for ya, Leo......

Just because I disagree with some of your opinions doesn't make me
"wrong".

73 de Jim, N2EY