Should Janet and Justin be banned from the Grammys???

[petal*pusher]

Personally, I think MORE than Janet's bare-breasted antic is a problem here.

The very ACTION of ripping a womans' clothes off should be every bit as upsetting as seeing the results!.......p

[Suzi Q]

Regarding Ms. Jackson's "old" or "uplifting" appearance, however you care to view or not view her or "it".....please take note that she WAS wearing a supportive undergarment, which can make things look, shall we say, younger and perkier. Can we say "underwire enhancement"? And regarding banning the two from the Grammys-do you really think that will affect their cash position at all? Got to him them where they will feel it-their bank accounts. Banning them will NOT accomplish that.

[j]

Personally, I think MORE than Janet's bare-breasted antic is a problem here.

The very ACTION of ripping a womans' clothes off should be every bit as upsetting as seeing the results!.......p

THAT is the real problem here. Everyone is doing major damage control now...poor poor Janet, being made to look like a victim now. The truth of the matter is they (the performers, CBS, MTV) had every intention of doing everything they did except exposing the bare breast! The dance routines were rehearsed, complete with bumping & grinding and thong covered extras, there was the butt slapping, the finger sucking, and for the grand finally ripping off of clothes! Oh...and the lyrics of course...how appropriate for a primetime family hour.

Justin...poor poor boy...he didn't know he was ripping off everything...he wss only supposed to rip off the top part! Dam* wardrobe failure! Again....they will have you think that what happened at the very end of this entire disgusting halftime show, is the ONLY issue here.

[stormchazer]

Ban them!!!!

[JQ Public]

Janet, Justin Invited Back to Grammys

Saturday, February 07, 2004



NEW YORK — Janet, Justin Invited Back to Grammys

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake have been invited back to Sunday’s Grammy telecast on CBS.

The only proviso: each of them must issue a one-sentence apology on screen about their actions at the Super Bowl half time show last Sunday.

So far, the Grammy production company and CBS is waiting to see if one or both of the pop stars will accept these conditions, my sources tell me.

Of course, the pair will not appear together. I am told that Timberlake is furious with Jackson about the scandal involving her bared breast.

“He really thought she would have something on underneath when he pulled her top,” my source said.

Whether or not you believe that is a personal matter. Personally, this reporter does not care.

But Janet’s boyfriend, producer Jermaine Dupri, obviously does. To protest Jackson’s expulsion from the Grammy show, Dupri resigned from the Atlanta chapter of NARAS, the Grammy group, yesterday.

“We want Janet and Justin on the show,” a Grammy insider told me last night at the MusiCares dinner for Sting which was held at Sony’s Culver City studios. “It’s CBS that’s paranoid and causing all the trouble. The negotiating goes on and on.”

Will Janet and Justin apologize and appear on the show? My gut instinct says yes, but you never know.

In the meantime, dozens of pop stars and actors convened last night for the Sting dinner including Dustin Hoffman, Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas, Bob Geldof, Tony Bennett, Elvis Costello (without new wife Diana Krall), Sarah Maclachlan, Herb Alpert, Herbie Hancock, Nile Rodgers, Wynonna, and the Black Eyed Peas.

I’ll tell you more about that tomorrow. I did leave Sting, wife Trudie Styler, Griffith and Banderas, and Geldof dancing the night away at 2:30 a.m. PST at the ultra-hip, tiny 40 Deuce Club, however, celebrating Sting’s big night and enjoying the Disney-esque burlesque of faux strippers and a hot retro jazz band. In case you were wondering, Sting and Styler are as incorrigible as teenagers; Griffith and Banderas were stiff as chaperones at a junior high school dance. Go figure!

[Anonymous]

Perhaps Justin should be banned for being such a manufactured and talentless "musician," but nonetheless I voted no. It's human anatomy... perhaps we should start requiring people to cover every square inch of exposed skin on their body when they appear on-air... after all, a finger, leg, etc. could offend someone I guess. I could maybe see a problem had they been simulating sex acts on-stage, but simply exposing a body part? I'm missing what the problem is here...

[timNms]

Brett, the problem is that a lot of kids under 10 were watching some of their heroes playing football. Unfortunately, some of those kids were also watching the half time show. The ''revelation" was made in a violent sexual manner. It's bad enough that her breast was shown to KIDS, let alone with sexual overtones. Kids don't need to be exposed to that. Who knows, this could have an impact on some of those kids. It could cause them to think violent sex is ok...that it's ok to go up to your girlfriend and rip off her top.

[Anonymous]

It could cause them to think violent sex is ok...that it's ok to go up to your girlfriend and rip off her top.

Great point and I have to agree with you there... I just get sick of hearing the whining about the mere fact that a bare breast was shown on TV, which alone is not a problem at all IMO.

[Skywatch_NC]

Yes, because that crap is just uncalled for! Who were they 'trying' to "impress" anyway??

Eric

[Stephanie]

There are rules & regulations as far as what can and cannot be shown on television and during what period of time. Most of it is to protect kids from seeing "adult" oriented entertainment. J & J forgot that the football game wasn't just for adults only.

[Skywatch_NC]

There are rules & regulations as far as what can and cannot be shown on television and during what period of time. Most of it is to protect kids from seeing "adult" oriented entertainment. J & J forgot that the football game wasn't just for adults only.

Steph, I was just being sarcastic with the second part of my post there.