The Grammy Awards we see will be 5 sec late;
NBA All Star game will be 7 sec late...

 

Just kill the entire family. Makes me ashaimed they're from Indiana

 

if all the people that complained about janet and her nipple would take the time instead to raise their kids right we'd prolly have alot less problems....

 

They already do this for a lot of "llive" broadcasts. Almost all radio shows are broadcast with a delay. That way people can't just get on the air (on radio or tv) and just curse during a phone call or an interview.

 

Sad part is, parents are too lazy to raise their kids, so they depend on schools and the media to do it for them.

 

The superbowl situation isn't about parents being lazy.

Parents have a right to teach their kids about sex, and sex related content when they feel the kids are ready.

I, for one, don't mind seeing Janet's nipple, the ass of the fat guy from NYPD blue, another hairy ass on CSI, etc. on TV.

The difference with the Superbowl and those other shows is dependant on the target market that the show and game are intended for. The Superbowl has long since been a family affair type of game. Grown men watch it, grown women watch it, and kids of ALL ages watch it.

CSI, NYPD Blue, ER, etc. are all shows that most likely don't interest kids. If a kid is watching that show and isn't supposed to, the parent can do sometihng about (the parent should 'parent'...they know the show's mature nature of content).

However, the game is generally a 'G'-rated broadcast. I for one, was very upset that my nephew was in the room and caught very good glimpse of what he had no reason to see at the age of 5. Had I known this was coming, I would have sent him out of the room for the half-time show (there shows that I have some control of parenting, however, when something as intentional and unexpected like this comes up, the parent doesn't have proper time to parent).

What was the astonish room of adults left with when little Raj asked us what that was? His parents aren't ready to begin teaching him about the bird and the bees, the differences between mommy and daddy, etc. If they tell him that he's too young to know, he'll end up sneaking on the internet to see. If they tell him now, he may not be mature enough to take in the information.

I, myself, am not a parent. However, my wife and I are close enough to friends and family who are parents. We can understand what parents have to struggle with in raising kids...I'm guessing those of you that reply to this situation with "...this isn't that big of a deal" aren't parents or don't realize what parents are contending with.

BTW, Raj doesn't get to watch MTV or any other shows or movies that his parents don't allow. They aren't being lazy. As he gets older, he'll get more priviliges. Sometimes I really miss the innocence that I grew up with and have pity for those kids that won't realize was their innocence was. Spiritually, I'm willing to bet that the meaning to life is easily answered by those who have lived in innocence...it would answer why parents enjoy watching their kids when they are very young.

 

It's the point that this is free television regulated by the government, not MTV, which you have to pay for.

Janet is at fault mostly, but don't forget CBS. If some guy came across streaking, they have a responsibility to have a delay. That's why there are VChips and Age Limits on what you watch and thats how parents can judge what is right for their kids.

 

Vchip wouldn't have controlled the broadcast of the Superbowl. It's a "g" rated show. Also, when have parents ever needed to restrict their kids from watching football, baseball, soccer, tennis, basketball, etc.

Parents have been known to restrict certain 'adult' orientated shows and movies from their kids viewing.

As far as gov't regulation, don't get it twisted, cable TV has government regulation on it as well. I agree with you that Janet and MTV (producers of the halftime show) have liability here. The only liability I see that CBS had in my opinion is NOT using a delay to begin with.

 

so it's cool if a 5yr old witnesses sexually suggestive dancing on screen, but just absolutely immoral to witness 9/10ths of a breast? please explain. i don't have kids, but if i did, and they asked, i would've been like, "that was her breast" and left it at that. somewhere somebody taught us nudity is bad. is it really? i think that it's all probably contextual.(if that's a word)

 

In this situation it's bad because it was sexually explicit, if you listen to the lyrics to the song (without barfing), you'll hear he's gonna get her by the end of this song.

Nudity/Art is one thing, teaching a kid that it's okay to sexually assault someone isn't. It's worse because a lot of kids listen to Justin Timberbarf.