American Elections and the Superbowl

MG

It just occurred to me (forgive me if it was mentioned elsewhere) but probably the single most indicative pointer as to how the US election would go was Janet Jacksons breast exposure at the Superbowl. The outraged reaction of some sections of society was a bellwether of the political shift to the evangelical right.Thoughts?

Stark

"Prudes for Bush"

Got it.

bus77

Was the backlash really big or was it the press hiping it up?

Hobbes

bus77 wrote:

Was the backlash really big or was it the press hiping it up?

Well the showing of a nipple now means that there is no such thing as "live" TV in the US now. Everything is on a loop, just like Communist Russia (in its day).

PH01

Damn You Janet Jackson!

claidheamh

"Media Hype" reaches absurd levels in the US; Unfortunately the subject matter typically surrounds fairly shallow subject matter. It seems the majority of US citizens are drawn to such "flash."

If they had to do anything, I think it would have been better for the FCC to publicly ignore the incident. Extinguishing behaviour, when used correctly, is an effective option for behaviour modification. Then, if they deemed it necessary, admonish the performers in private.

Personally, I think the FCC is much too restrictive with less important issues(ie., occasional glimpse of partial nudity), and completely unrestrictive with more pressing issues condoning hate, rape, murder...

ionapaul

And because of the reaction to both Janet and our very own Bono, many TV stations refused to air Saving Private Ryan (uncut, as is stipulated by Spielberg) for this Veteran's Day because they were worried about complaints and fines. The thing to remember here is not that these people, the 'moral majority' of Christian fundementalists, do not constitute a majority of anything, Americans or even Bush voters! They are currently just the loudest and are throwing their weight around. Jerry Falwell has just come out (!) and urged Bush to appoint judges who will seek to make decisions based on the Bible.
IMHO, such a idiotic move would result in a loss of much of Bush's mainstream support and the gifting of the 2008 election to the Democrats. The 'security' moms of suburbia that deserted the Democrats after being frightened by the Republic campaign into voting for Bush would run back to the Dems in a hurry should an evangelical agenda take hold. Bush reputedly isn't even much of a 'born-again', supposedly it's mostly a show for the gullible.

As for the Superbowl, come on the Colts!

edit: my 600th post, w00t w00t!

Sand

The thing to remember here is not that these people, the 'moral majority' of Christian fundementalists, do not constitute a majority of anything, Americans or even Bush voters! They are currently just the loudest and are throwing their weight around. Jerry Falwell has just come out (!) and urged Bush to appoint judges who will seek to make decisions based on the Bible.

Yup, everyones scared to challenge them because theyre well organised, vocal and theyve got God on their side. I wouldnt think it beyond the bounds of reason that there could be a split in the Republican party eventually due to the more secularly minded members dissatisfaction with overtly christian influences on that party. That or possibly even more likely, Christian groups dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in advancing their own agenda.

If anything its another demonstration of the power of lobby groups over elected officials and indeed society at large. Measures designed to open up democratic process to the public eye more in theory actually mean making that process more open to influence by lobbyists in practice. Politicians have been stressing their Christian values ever since they got surprised by polls in the 70s showing about a third of americans considered themselves born again Christians. Even Bush is a convert, all the better to stress his links.

With a number of Supreme Court Justices coming up soon theyre probably feeling theyve scored an important triumph in the culture wars between the the blues and reds there - question is will Bush consider their support important now that he doesnt need their votes anymore?

bonkey

Sand wrote:

question is will Bush consider their support important now that he doesnt need their votes anymore?

How important is anyone's? If its not important, Bush is effectively free to do whatever his belief's tell him is right....instead of playing to someone elses tune. So if he believes it would be the right thing to have morally-conservative judges.....

TBH, I have no idea which way he'll go. Neither option would surprise me. The other thing to remember is that once appointed, the judge owes Bush nothing either....he could well appoint someone he thinks is perfect, only to have a different set of "true colours" emerge post-appointment.

It'll be interesting one way or the other. I'm sure someone will be loudly outraged not matter what, and thats always good for a soundbite or two.

jc

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

And because of the reaction to both Janet and our very own Bono, many TV stations refused to air Saving Private Ryan (uncut, as is stipulated by Spielberg) for this Veteran's Day because they were worried about complaints and fines.

I don't think it is. Or rather they gave that excuse but I would suspect the reason it wasn't aired was due to its extremly graphic nature points out what happens in a war. This could turn people off the war in Iraq.

ixoy

Hobbes wrote:

I don't think it is. Or rather they gave that excuse but I would suspect the reason it wasn't aired was due to its extremly graphic nature points out what happens in a war. This could turn people off the war in Iraq.

Possibly but aren't the FCC fines something like $15,000 per incident and that an incident could be just one utterance of the dreaded - gasp - "F-word"? Given the movie has a number of "incidents" the fines would quickly add up. Then there's also the FCC groundswell to increase the fines to $500,000 per incident and then extend their mandate to cover cable channels. If they got their hands on the likes of HBO I'd be decidedly unimpressed.

If I remember correctly, the ABC affiliates that did run "Saving Private Ryan" got a number of calls, all praising them for airing the movie. The FCC were, in turn, contacted and said that, whilst they got complaints a number of the complaints were people irritated that their local ABC affiliate hadn't shown the movie (due to the FCC). This alone is some indicator that the Nipplegate crowd don't speak for everyone.