Give O’Reilly the Janet Jackson Treatment!
Check out this video at Hot Air. It’s Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers discussing the “Girls Gone Wild” case with O’Reilly — which is, of course, just a chance for O’Reilly to pump up ratings by showing censored versions of naked girls dancing.
But just how censored are they? Early on in the video there is a woman in a red shirt and a cowboy hat dancing. To the left of her, in the background, is a woman dancing. You see her apparently bare back as she dances, and then she turns in profile. Right about the same time you hear Malkin sigh in frustration at having to discuss such silliness, you seem to see . . . a breast! And possibly even . . . a nipple!!!
Janet Jackson’s nipple cost CBS $550,000. I think someone needs to file an indecency complaint against O’Reilly — not so much for the bare nipple, which is fine . . . but for making Malkin and Powers discuss such a stupid topic.
Aren’t the standards different on cable vs. broadcast?
sharon (03e82c) — 9/13/2006 @ 7:37 amBig difference between broadcast tv and cable.
G (722480) — 9/13/2006 @ 7:56 amI thought I must have been mistaken when I saw that. Their “censor” was apparently asleep at the switch.
hdw (dc60da) — 9/13/2006 @ 8:31 amAnd not a single mention of a loofah being involved… can’t be all that scandalous…
ajacksonian (03662a) — 9/13/2006 @ 8:40 amB.S. The FCC is about as obsolete as Marconi’s spark-gap radio so it’s trying to preserve its existence by becoming a censor. It needs a serious challenge under First Amendment grounds.
Its original function, of allocating frequencies and wattages, has been supplanted by our UN mission. UN treaties govern that now. With digital technology (in all its definitions), microwave and even particle wave coming soon it will shortly be totally irrelevant. So it tries to preserve its existence by regulating content.
nk (d7a872) — 9/13/2006 @ 8:41 amO’Reilly oogling bouncing, bare breasts? Olbermann must be livid with jealousy…
Tom (83cda7) — 9/13/2006 @ 9:56 amNo, Olbermann is only interested in other guys.
nikkolai (b316fa) — 9/13/2006 @ 10:08 amThat’s simply outrageous that such filth could be shown on tv when impressionable young children could be watching. On a completely unrelated subject, does anyone know when O’reilly episodes are rerun?
buzz (9e5c44) — 9/13/2006 @ 1:07 pm“I think someone needs to file …”
STFU.
paul a'barge (075e23) — 9/13/2006 @ 5:02 pm“STFU.”
EYDGI.
(Evidently You Don’t Get Irony.)
Patterico (de0616) — 9/13/2006 @ 5:08 pmB.S. The FCC is about as obsolete as Marconi’s spark-gap radio so it’s trying to preserve its existence by becoming a censor. It needs a serious challenge under First Amendment grounds.
I agree. So why is it B.S.? It’s irony, dude.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/13/2006 @ 5:09 pmOK. I was aiming broadly at the whole “no sex, no violence, no cholesterol on prime time” movement and not at you in particular. Sorry if you got grazed.
nk (54c569) — 9/13/2006 @ 5:31 pmI must confess,
I admire the intellect of both Ms. Michelle Malkin, and Ms. Kirsten Powers deeply!
Miss Malkin I read assiduously, almost every day, and love her incisive, no-nonsense approach to dealing with the issues; aside from the fact that I agree with her conservative views most of the time!
With Ms. Powers, I disagree 99% of the time politically, but nevertheless, I enjoy her wit, and how articulate, and charming, she is in making her misguided arguments!
I find it a pleasure to read them in the blogosphere, and to watch them both whenever they are guests on Fox.
However, the other night, when O’Reilly had them both on the program to discuss the plight of po’ Lil’ ole’ “Girls Gone Wild,” I don’t know if it was the fact of seeing them both together in conjunction with the subject matter, but for a second there, I seemed to have suffered a “Freudian” slip, and could not help but fantasize about both of them being there in the clips Bill was showing, Michelle and Kirsten, dancing “salaciously”, and engaging in the same “naughty”, “exhibitionist” behavior of those other “Girls Gone Wild”!!! Ahhhh….!!!
Fortunately, I quickly came back to my senses, and after taking a quick cold shower and a good look at the wife to calm a bit down, was able to return to appreciate Ms. Malkin’s and Ms. Power’s “intellect”, as always,…without being distracted by subliminal Freudian impulses! I tell you though, it was a hard experience!
LOL!
Althor 😀
Althor (d8da01) — 9/13/2006 @ 10:26 pmI can’t imagine that O’Reilly intended any such reaction on his viewers’ part . . .
Patterico (de0616) — 9/13/2006 @ 10:36 pmI was absolutely astonished last week when, on some NPR interview program (might have been ‘Fresh Air’, but i’m not sure), the host was talking to an FCC commissioner and was asking him about what his proudest moment was as a commissioner, something where he thought the FCC had done an unusually good job, etc, and the example which came immediately to his mind was the Janet Jackson case.
?!
aphrael (e7c761) — 9/14/2006 @ 12:39 amwhen O’Reilly had them both on the program to discuss the plight of po’ Lil’ ole’ “Girls Gone Wild,” I don’t know if it was the fact of seeing them both together in conjunction with the subject matter, but for a second there, I seemed to have suffered a “Freudian” slip, and could not help but fantasize about both of them being there in the clips Bill was showing, Michelle and Kirsten, dancing “salaciously”, and engaging in the same “naughty”, “exhibitionist” behavior of those other “Girls Gone Wild”!!!
Really?
You needed that clip to dream up such a scenario?
Testosterone boosters for that man, stat!
Frank Black (798820) — 9/14/2006 @ 11:08 amQuote: Testosterone boosters for that man, stat!
Comment by Frank Black — 9/14/2006 @ 11:08 am
Now,now, Frank, I don’t need any testosterone boosters – I’m not Rosie O’Donnell, I’m just used to objectively admiring Michelle’s, and Kirsten’s “intellects”…only. But when you take a less intellectual, good look at them, you realize there’s a lot more to admire in them (hang tongue out here), that’s all!
Althor 😀
Althor (d8da01) — 9/14/2006 @ 2:40 pm