Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake perform the "strip seen round the world."
They were probably shooting for a Madonna/Britney-style controversy; a cheeky, in-your-face moment that would snag front page headlines and dominate water cooler talk for a day or two between the Super Bowl and the next Democratic primaries.
Instead, halftime performers Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson have stepped into the biggest controversy roiling the broadcast industry these days: where to draw the line on explicit TV content.
Soon after Timberlake was shown baring Jackson's breast by pulling away a piece of her clothing Sunday, CBS's switchboards were filled with complaints. By Monday, morning news shows and cable news channels were dissecting footage of the incident as if it were the Zapruder film, looking to answer the ultimate question: What did they know, and when did they know it?
Now, Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has expressed his own outrage over the incident, announcing a "thorough and swift" investigation into whether the display violated the agency's indecency rules.
"Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. . . . Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt," Powell said in a statement. "Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better."
Janet and Justin couldn't have picked a worse moment.
Henceforth known as the "strip seen round the world," the incident came days after a U.S. House subcommittee hearing in which FCC officials faced pointed accusations that they weren't doing enough to police broadcast indecency.
Last Tuesday, the FCC proposed the second-highest fine in its history - a cool $755,000 - against Clear Channel Communications because of material broadcast by Tampa shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge. But lawmakers and advocacy groups heaped criticism on the agency anyway, in part for deciding last year not to fine NBC affiliates that aired an f-word expletive by U2 frontman Bono during the January 2003 Golden Globes broadcast.
A Senate hearing, tentatively titled "Protecting Children From Violent and Indecent Programming," is scheduled Feb. 11, to be chaired by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
In such a climate, how could the FCC do nothing?
"I personally think it was inappropriate . . . (but) because we're talking about the First Amendment, Congress needs to proceed deliberately," said U.S. Rep. Jim Davis, D-Tampa, who serves on the House Energy and Commerce telecommunications subcommittee, which met Wednesday.
"The more important question is, what policy does the FCC use to decide to proceed (with enforcement)?" said Davis, who is considering co-sponsoring a bill to increase the maximum fine allowed by the FCC from $27,500 to $275,000. "Do they decide things in a way that presents a clear and firm standard? Ultimately, it's about having standards that result in the broadcasters policing themselves."
Perhaps realizing what a pile they've stepped in this time, all involved in the Timberlake/Jackson incident were distancing themselves Monday in a round of dueling press statements.
The NFL said, "It's unlikely that MTV will produce another Super Bowl halftime" (at least, until a few years pass and we've all forgotten about this). MTV called the move "unrehearsed, unplanned, completely unintentional and . . . inconsistent with assurances we had about the content of the performance."
Timberlake blamed a "wardrobe malfunction" that was "not intentional and is regrettable" (he was probably envisioning his performance slot on CBS's upcoming Grammy Awards broadcast slipping away, slowly). A CBS spokeswoman said, "We attended all rehearsals throughout the week, and there was no indication that any such thing would happen."
Such protests ring hollow, however. Revealing the stunt during a public rehearsal would have tipped the world's press and ruined any surprise.
Jackson's choreographer told MTV.com days earlier that the performance would have "shocking moments." And the singer was shown Sunday wearing what one reporter described as a "metal solar nipple medallion," hardly the sort of accessory someone sports under her clothing just for the heck of it.
Since Jackson hasn't released an album in nearly four years - Sunday, she performed Rhythm Nation, the title track from an album released 15 years ago - a saucy onstage controversy with a rumored former beau and pop star 14 years her junior might have seemed just the ticket.
(My first half-serious thought, which came moments after the, um, revelation: Perhaps Jackson was just trying to get out of serving as a character witness in brother Michael's child molestation trial? If so, mission accomplished.)
Web sites across the country had the footage online almost before the game was over. Cybergossip Matt Drudge offered a collection of still photos showing a closeup of Jackson's breast (and the medallion) along with a glowering image of the singer, perhaps indicating she may not have been so pleased with the "exposure." (Drudge, however, reported that CBS executives knew what was coming.)
President Bush sidestepped the issue Monday by telling reporters he didn't see the incident because he slept through it.
"I don't want to admit it, but because this White House starts early, I missed it - again," he said Monday after a Cabinet meeting, according to the Associated Press. "Saw the first half, did not see the halftime."
As these zeitgeist-tapping events so often do, the display neatly capped a Super Bowl Sunday drenched in exploitive sexual images, bawdy humor and erectile dysfunction ads so detailed that you expected Dr. Ruth to pop out of the wings with a flow chart.
Even before Justin exposed Janet, there was rapper Nelly touching himself at halftime while singing about women whose "a- is bodacious," a Bud Light ad in which a flatulent horse ignited candles on a cake and a Chevrolet ad in which a succession of kids were seen sucking soap bars after seeing a car so impressive they exclaimed, "Holy Shhh . . ."
It all added up to a button-pushing, repeatedly explicit deluge of media messages displayed before one of the largest Super Bowl audiences of all time (89.6-million viewers nationally, the most since 1998, according to Nielsen Media Research; locally, about 61 percent of households watching TV tuned in).
Parents who may have found themselves explaining a number of scatological concepts to their children Sunday night were not amused.
"It wasn't something I wanted to watch with my 12-year-old son," said Pete Nikiel, spokesman for local CBS affiliate WTSP-Ch. 10, which received about 30 complaint calls. "I hope something comes of (the controversy)."
That's not likely a viewpoint shared by Viacom, which owns 39 TV stations (including WTOG-Ch. 44 locally) and 185 radio stations, along with CBS, MTV and many other communications outlets.
For this company - pushed into becoming the archetype for runaway TV content by a couple of impetuous pop stars - the trouble is only just beginning.
Given how brazenly Viacom used such content to hype this year's Super Bowl in the first place, it's a particularly poetic form of TV justice.
