Guest Commentary: What's Really Obscene?
by Layola
Thanks for another great issue [January/February 2004]! I found Kazarian’s article on “Emotional Gladiators” timely. Last January was an interesting month for media watchers, as the spotlight turned upon itself in the aftermath of the biggest media circus of the year: the Super Bowl. Cries of "obscenity" ring out and echo in the never-ending replay of the exposure of Janet Jackson’s digitally scrambled breast. Obscenity is one of those ambiguous concepts that changes over time as mores change. Absolute standards of beauty, truth, and goodness may exist on some level, but in popular culture these things are more amorphous. Inextricably tied to its opposites—morality and decency—obscenity only exists in reverse. Culture says "I can’t define it—but I know it when I see it." And as culture changes, so does our tolerance for that which should and does repel us.
It is indicative of how far we have fallen that American society has come to look upon the Super Bowl with nigh-on religious fervor. Friends and families gather to consume copious quantities of the sacramental chips and beer—it is estimated that 8 million pounds of guacamole passed our lips on Super Bowl Sunday, resulting in a 20% increase in antacid sales on Monday. Rituals arise and the ceremonial observation of the half-time show takes on an obligatory air. Church attendance continues to decline in this country, even on the once mandatory Christmas and Easter holidays, but an estimated 138.9 million Americans tuned in to Super Bowl XXXV. We even hold it on the Sabbath! The tenets of this new "religion" run counter to what we have traditionally held holy. Greed is good. Aggression is good. But most of all, commercialism is good. We worship the Almighty Buck. The URANTIA Book, in the section on the Later Evolution of Religion, says "Social morality is not determined by religion, that is, by evolutionary [as opposed to revealed] religion; rather are the forms of religion dictated by the racial morality." (pp. 1004-1005) What does it say about our societal morality if our form of worship has come to this? Why, we are all topsy-turvy!
A bare breast is not obscene; hungry children everywhere can agree on that. An assault against that breast should be obscene, but in this topsy-turvy world we have felt it necessary to put the blame somewhere else. Some good questions have been raised, questions about our society, especially in relation to gender and race. Why was the woman to blame? (Are we still harkening back to Eve and the apple?) What if it had been a black hand and a white breast? (Would the tables have been turned?) Where is the line between vulgarity and entertainment? Do we draw it differently if children are watching? And what is more vulgar than grown men bashing each other about?
I wish that the incident had raised questions of the real obscenity—the game itself and the system that created it. It is, after all, a 60-minute game with 30 minutes of commercials. The cost for every 30 seconds of those ads was $2.25 million. (For some 16% of self-described fans, the advertisements are the main reason to watch the game.) All told, the anticipated revenue to CBS for its Super Bowl programming was $150 million. Ultimately, of course, we pay the price in increased costs for things we buy, but there are hidden costs as well. Thanks to the team of Jackson and Timberlake, think of how much time we have wasted discussing it after the fact!
We’re all in a tizz. Eleven days after the game, committees in the Senate and House held hearings to grill the five Federal Communications Commissioners. The subject of their inquiry was indecency—but where were they seven months ago when the FCC performed their most indecent act: deregulating the industry that controls our airwaves. The real indecency is that huge conglomerates own the media and that we the people have little or no control over what is broadcast and therefore, what we see and hear. The Federal Communications Act was passed in 1934, with the aim of "promoting the public interest, convenience and necessity." They knew then what we have forgotten: the airwaves belong to us. Knowing the power of the broadcast media, their goal was to protect us from too much of that power being held in the hands of too few. In June of last year, despite objections from numerous organizations and millions of Americans, the FCC (headed by Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell—it is a VERY small club indeed!) voted 3 to 2 to loosen the government’s control on who can own how much of the media.
We have, it seems, three choices. We can opt out and follow the advice of the old bumper-sticker: "Blow up your tee-vee." But then we miss those few things that TV does well (like much of what we find on PBS). We can become discriminating viewers and consumers of noncommercial television and radio. (It’s no accident that the P stands for public.) A third alternative, though, is to take back the airwaves. Speak up and demand more than the lowest common denominator. Go online and check out moveon.org, reclaimthemedia.org, and adbusters.org for starters. And be sure to read your Alternative Voice from cover to cover!