Sunday, February 15, 2004
At last, A Defense of Janet Jackson: Frank Rich Hits It Out Of The Park
There are occasions when Frank Rich can drive me absolutely batty, but that is almost exclusively when he writes about politics, where he is often astute, but just as often cynically clueless, a subject that will be dealt with in part deux of "Mo Do As Signifier," which is currently in the works.
When Rich takes on cultural hypocrisy, there is hardly anyone better, or braver.
In the NYTimes magazine section today, he proclaims "My Hero, Janet Jackson" and the subsequent long column is every bit as delicious as the title promises.
I'm not sure he's entirely right about Ms. Jackson here, but his real target is the worst instincts of an American public that presents itself on cue, en masse, as a passive audience for a television spectacle, and then acts as if it had no way of knowing what was coming next.
But his most intense ire is directed at the powerful political and media players who pander to those worst instincts, and do their best to keep the viewing audience passive.
There's lots more just as good. Go enjoy.
When Rich takes on cultural hypocrisy, there is hardly anyone better, or braver.
In the NYTimes magazine section today, he proclaims "My Hero, Janet Jackson" and the subsequent long column is every bit as delicious as the title promises.
It may be a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Two weeks after the bustier bust, almost no one has come to the defense of Janet Jackson. I do so with a full heart. By baring a single breast in a slam-dunk publicity stunt of two seconds' duration, this singer also exposed just how many boobs we have in this country. We owe her thanks for a genuine public service.
You can argue that Ms. Jackson is the only honest figure in this Super Bowl of hypocrisy. She was out to accomplish a naked agenda — the resuscitation of her fading career on the eve of her new album's release — and so she did. She's not faking much remorse, either. Last Sunday she refused to appear on the Grammys rather than accede to CBS's demand that she perform a disingenuous, misty-eyed ritual "apology" to the nation for her crime of a week earlier. By contrast, Justin Timberlake, the wimp who gave the English language the lasting gift of "wardrobe malfunction," did as he was told, a would-be pop rebel in a jacket and a tie, looking like a schoolboy reporting to the principal's office. Ms. Jackson, one suspects, is laughing all the way to the bank.
I'm not sure he's entirely right about Ms. Jackson here, but his real target is the worst instincts of an American public that presents itself on cue, en masse, as a passive audience for a television spectacle, and then acts as if it had no way of knowing what was coming next.
There are plenty of Americans to laugh at, starting with the public itself. If we are to believe the general outcry, the nation's families were utterly blindsided by the Janet-Justin pas de deux while watching an entertainment akin to "Little Women." As Laura Bush put it, "Parents wouldn't know to turn their television off before that happened." They wouldn't? In the two-plus hours "before that happened," parents saw not only the commercials featuring a crotch-biting dog, a flatulent horse and a potty-mouthed child but also the number in which the crotch-grabbing Nelly successfully commanded a gaggle of cheerleaders to rip off their skirts. What signal were these poor, helpless adults waiting for before pulling their children away from the set? Apparently nothing short of a simulated rape would do.
But his most intense ire is directed at the powerful political and media players who pander to those worst instincts, and do their best to keep the viewing audience passive.
It's the unwritten rule of our culture that the public is always right. The "folks," as Bill O'Reilly is fond of condescending to them, are always the innocent victims of the big, bad cultural villains. They're never complicit in the crime. The idea that the folks might have the free will to tune out tasteless TV programming or do without TV altogether — or that they might eat up the sleaze, with or without young 'uns in the room — is almost never stated on television, for obvious reasons of fiscal self-interest. You don't insult your customers.
Since the public is blameless for its role in creating a market for displays like the Super Bowl's, who should be the scapegoat instead? If you peruse Mr. O'Reilly's admonitions in his first three programs dealing with the topic, or the tirades of The Wall Street Journal editorial page and right-wing direct-mail mills like the Parents Television Council and Concerned Women for America, you'll find a revealing pattern: MTV, CBS and their parent corporation, Viacom, are the exclusive targets of the invective. The National Football League is barely mentioned, if at all. To blame the country's highest-rated sports operation, after all, might risk insulting the football-watching folks to whom these moral watchdogs pander for fun and profit.
There's lots more just as good. Go enjoy.