|
Addendum to Network
World Backspin 11/22/04, Look at me! Look at me! On November 15th, 2004, ABC Sports broadcast an opening sketch segment to Monday Night Football that featured Nicollette Sheridan, one of the leads in the comedy series “Desperate Housewives” clad only in a towel, talking to Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens in the Eagles’ locker room. In the sketch Ms. Sheridan claims that her house burned down and she needed a shower. And what more obvious place to have a shower than the Eagles’ locker room? That would be most people’s first choice. Anyway, the rest of the sketch concerns Sheridan propositioning Owens and suggesting that he skips the game. He resists, she drops the towel (nothing more than a bare back is revealed), and he changes his mind declaring that “Aw, hell, the team's going to have to win without me.” Then we cut to two other actresses from “Desperate Housewives” who are watching the segment on TV and one says to the other something along the lines of “who watches this trash?” and then they mug to the camera about watching Monday Night Football (I know I sound vague but I couldn’t bring myself to watch the segment a second time; you can see it for yourself at iFilm; iFilm claims that the clip has been viewed almost 450,000 times). So, what is, or was, your reaction to this cross promotion of “Desperate Housewives”? Are you outraged? Disgusted? Appalled? All of the above? Or were you unmoved and totally unsurprised that ABC would do something as silly as that? It seems the media was moved. For example, Phil Mushnik in the New York Times Online Edition “was disgusted, offended but hardly surprised.” Steve Kelley in the Seattle Times wrote “When I saw it, my first thought was: What would I have done if this had happened six years ago and I was watching the TV with my high-school-football-playing son?” Kelley’s problem with the piece was over the message it contained that he believes kids would take away “was that sex rules. It is more important than responsibility or commitment” and goes on that “The pseudo-sexy nature of the scene wasn't offensive. We see it every night on television.” Kelley is quite right about two things: First that this was the normal bread that the networks peddle to the masses just before the circus comes on and second that sex does rule. Our culture revolves around the twin suns of violence and repressed sexuality which are both pervasive throughout our media. But when it comes to the effect on kids, Kelley is wrong. Would kids be swayed by the implicit message regarding responsibility and commitment? Would this piece of idiocy fundamentally change their values? I don’t think so. Not in comparison to messages in a similar vein that they see and hear in advertising far more frequently and with far more force that seem to be considered acceptable. Anyway, wouldn’t most parents watching with their children supply a little editorial? Something along the lines of how stupid the piece was? I guess not if the parent was too busy being outraged. And then there’s another twist to the criticisms: According to the New York Times, Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy said that he found the segment racially offensive. Dungy is quoted as saying "’To me, that's the first thing I thought of as an African-American … I think it's stereotypical in looking at the players, and on the heels of the Kobe Bryant incident I think it's very insensitive." How silly is that! But when it comes to being outraged everyone’s got their own spin. Even the Federal Communications Commission is reported to be "investigating" the broadcast. No surprises there. It seems that the FCC under Michael Powell is obsessed with cleaning up the airwaves and in the process is wasting our money with a wild abandon. You have to wonder how far off real censorship is. But I digress … What amazes me about this event is how thin-skinned everyone is, how easily offended and angered. It is as if they believe that a bared breast or a whiff of sexuality will be the downfall of civilization. People, get a grip. The correct response to something like this is laughter and ridicule. Disgust should be reserved for things that matter. You want to defuse the effect on your children? Laugh or be disdainful and they’ll get the correct message – yours. Rail against ABC or whoever, call the FCC, and write to the Times and you add weight to something that doesn’t warrant being taken seriously. When Janet Jackson revealed (I was going to reflexively write “all”) hardly anything, we should have found it as silly as it really was and when ABC ran their silly skit we should have ignored it. But what the public did in both cases was elevate these events thereby giving the perpetrators what they wanted: Attention. It is like watching little children dance around saying Look at me! Look at me!” and we do! And as for the effects on adults of these events? Only really, really naïve, gullible, immature people get outraged, disgusted, and angry over things like this – things that rank nearly invisible on any rational scale of importance. In reality there is nothing going on here that is going to shake your world unless you want it to. If you believe that the ABC skit or for that matter Ms Jackson’s nipple makes any difference you are missing the big picture. You want something to worry about, to rail about, to be disgusted by? Try Iraq, try pollution, try poverty, try government and business corruption – the list is huge and exhausting. But paying attention to people who are being silly is a waste of time. And you’re just giving them what they want: To be looked at. Finally I note that according to Rudy Martzke writing in USA Today that when asked after the game why he did the opening, Owens said, “I can't play football forever, so I'm trying to work on the Hollywood thing.” Look at me! Look at me! |