Monday, 8 November, 2004
Nipples are the new Bill Buckner
Apparently the Janet Jackson Excuse has legs. Big hairy ones. Here are reports from Houston, Sacramento, Des Moines and Grand Rapids. My own dear publication repeats the theory here. And no less than William freakin' Safire furthered it on Meet the Press yesterday. To wit:
You know, I think the social, political event of the past year was Janet Jackson's exposure of her right breast on television during the Super Bowl. Why? It wasn't what she did. It was the reaction which was fantastic. I mean, the NFL went up through the roof. The television network started crying bitterly. Bloggers exploded. The FCC started looking into it. And that was the case of, "Hey, you're going too far. You know, this is not what we should be doing." And that sense of, "Hey, you're going too far too fast" affects not just evangelicals but a lot of Americans. And that permeated this campaign.
This is, we think, complete hogwash. And will likely argue as much later this week in the official newsprint. But we're happy to see the foundation of the Janet Jackson theory is beginning to shudder (as compiled by my colleague Mr. Nestruck). As David Brooks writes in The New York Times, the idea that morals drove this election is a faulty one. To wit:
Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.
More later. Surely.
Apparently the Janet Jackson Excuse has legs. Big hairy ones. Here are reports from Houston, Sacramento, Des Moines and Grand Rapids. My own dear publication repeats the theory here. And no less than William freakin' Safire furthered it on Meet the Press yesterday. To wit:
You know, I think the social, political event of the past year was Janet Jackson's exposure of her right breast on television during the Super Bowl. Why? It wasn't what she did. It was the reaction which was fantastic. I mean, the NFL went up through the roof. The television network started crying bitterly. Bloggers exploded. The FCC started looking into it. And that was the case of, "Hey, you're going too far. You know, this is not what we should be doing." And that sense of, "Hey, you're going too far too fast" affects not just evangelicals but a lot of Americans. And that permeated this campaign.
This is, we think, complete hogwash. And will likely argue as much later this week in the official newsprint. But we're happy to see the foundation of the Janet Jackson theory is beginning to shudder (as compiled by my colleague Mr. Nestruck). As David Brooks writes in The New York Times, the idea that morals drove this election is a faulty one. To wit:
Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.
More later. Surely.
// posted by Aaron @ 2:33:00 AM
