Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GWOT Year 3 - 2004 (mainly Iraq)
O say, did you see Janet Jackson? by Richard Reeves et al. 
Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune |
O say, did you see Janet Jackson? Richard Reeves, Ramon Rodriguez and Siddharth Srivastava IHT Monday, February 9, 2004 It's crass, but let people look Such is the nature of media that a Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake event - rather, nonevent - has created as many reverberations here in New Delhi as in the United States. It's on TV, the Internet, front pages, editorials, in vernacular as well as English. The Google search record makes it the biggest grab of all time. As in most other places, there is indignation over a foreign culture polluting our young minds. But the bigger question is about culture. In a world where the nature of seamless media makes every little happening anywhere just a click of the remote or the mouse away, are we also looking at a world where cultural borders are broken? Should they be? I am not arguing that the Janet-Justin act is a reflection of the way all American people behave or think. Of course, things are more civilized in the United States. But American popular culture is regularly covered in the tabloids and on TV here: Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Demi Moore and her boyfriend attending an event with her ex-husband, Bruce Willis, and his current girlfriend. To be sure, the Indian establishment has tried to snip out elements that are, in its view, inappropriate for "vulnerable" Indian minds. Sushma Swaraj, the former information and broadcasting minister, took umbrage at Fashion Television's breast-popping models. FTV producers flew to India to assuage the ruffled Swaraj. The models were buffered for a few days. But they reappeared in full glory a few days later. There was no further word from Swaraj. Indeed, most endeavors to check global multimedia onslaughts have failed. Given the rapid advance of technology and media platforms, it is impossible to control flow of information, text or visual, good or bad. There is also an unwritten consensus that there is no "right" safeguard. The decision is too subjective, and against the liberal principles that India is striving for. The other path is to go the way of Saudi Arabia, where the subjects get to hear or see what is chosen for them. A scary thought, notwithstanding J-J. All is not good about America. All is not good about Indian culture. But there are good elements in both. It is wise to pick the best elements of both sub-cultures, but ultimately the choice is individual. That's liberty. That's keeping abreast of America. Siddharth Srivastava, New Delhi The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist. Bad taste, the American way I missed the whole thing. I was watching the Super Bowl with a couple of other guys and when the halftime show began, we talked on, all still facing the big screen as it filled with smoke and fire and people screaming. But none of us saw Justin baring Janet's breast. What's all the fuss about? I mean this is a free country, so you can always switch the channel. You could watch the History Channel and get the inside scoop on how Lyndon Johnson lured John Kennedy to Dallas and then murdered him. The news channels have some good stuff on gay marriage, cannibalism or the celebrity trial of the day. And if none of that is free speech enough for you, there's always the Internet. Like it or not, bad taste and mass prurience are part and parcel of the American way. That, combined with our self-righteous bullying around the world, is one of the reasons American image campaigns, featuring the fact that the United States is a very religious country, are laughed at or cursed in many other countries. Margaret Tutwiler, who was recently appointed by Secretary of State Colin Powell to take charge of "public diplomacy," told Congress last week: "Our country has a problem in far too many parts of the world ... a problem that does not lend itself to a quick fix." No, it is not simple. Giving people a more favorable and more accurate picture of who we really are, said Tutwiler, is going to take years of hard work. It might be helpful to keep them away from our televised strippers - if we can. Richard Reeves, Los Angeles The writer is a syndicated columnist. The misogynist West Super Bowl XXXVIII is one or the history books, but for all the wrong reasons. What all of us witnessed a week ago was the very worst of America put on global display for all the world to see. The Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake incident was only one of a series of excesses that built one upon another until Janet Jackson's bodice was ripped away by Timberlake, revealing a breast. Imagine how people in the Middle East are going to react to this display, with its implications of Western decadence and exploitation, at a time when we are urging them to follow the American example, especially with regard to women. Is nothing sacred? Is there anything that our children can enjoy or partake in that has not yet been adulterated? What has happened in the United States of America that has led the bosses of the National Football League and CBS to think they could get away with foisting such a disgusting exhibition of excess on Americans? For one, we exist in a palpable and tangible culture of sex and violence, with the misogynist strains of "modern youth music" proudly on display, with young males being taught to disrespect females, perhaps even to scorn them or hold them in contempt. The Super Bowl halftime fiasco represents a new low in American vulgarity and sexism. Ramon Rodriguez, Fillmore, California The writer is a college instructor and freelance writer. Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune |