VSLover From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Feb 2004, 1877 posts, RR: 19 Posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2051 times:
WTF? The FCC is really becoming a problematic bureaucracy here. No Howard Stern, delaying almost ANYTHING Janet Jackson appears on, and now this?
From Entertainment Weekly, EW.com:
Post-Janet, Victoria's Secret drops annual TV showcase. The lingerie maker decided shortly after the Super Bowl not to risk criticism of its fashion show anymore by Gary Susman
You won't be seeing a Victoria's Secret fashion show on TV this year, but it's not because consumers are mystified by the lingerie seller's recent choice of grizzled Bob Dylan as pitchman. Rather, you can blame the flimsy brassiere briefly worn by Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl. Ed Razek, the company's chief creative officer, told the Associated Press that the company was dropping its annual telecast to look for other ways to promote the brand, but he acknowledged that the decision was made shortly after Jackson's bra collapsed and prompted an FCC crackdown on broadcast indecency. ''We had to make the decision probably six to eight weeks ago when the heat was on the television networks.'' CBS, which aired the two most recent Victoria's Secret specials, hasn't had anything to say about the dropping of the show, but after having broadcast Jackson's Super Bowl ''wardrobe malfunction,'' the network is probably relieved not to have the headache. Responses to the show have been dwindling ratings (it drew 9.4 million oglers last November) and increasing complaints to the FCC over its flesh quotient. Maybe Victoria's Secret should make it a pay-per-view event; $20 to see the fashion show, or $40 to see it without interspersed footage of Bob Dylan.
VSLover From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Feb 2004, 1877 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2032 times:
ConcordeBoy From United States, joined Feb 2001, 18128 posts, RR: 76 Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2029 times:
Why couldnt she have ripped something off of JT?
because (and not surprisingly) according to Britney, they would have needed a superdooperultra-zoom camera in order to get any effect from her doing so
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
Futureualpilot From United States, joined May 2000, 2157 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2027 times:
So lets see...people would have plenty of warning for when this would appear on television...what channel, what time, etc. so what's the problem? I have yet to find a T.V./remote control without a button to change the channel. This is getting ridiculous.
Superfly From United States, joined May 2000, 26105 posts, RR: 74 Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2027 times:
ConcordeBoy: because (and not surprisingly) according to Britney, they would have needed a superdooperultra-zoom camera in order to get any effect from her doing so
VSLover From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Feb 2004, 1877 posts, RR: 19 Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
because (and not surprisingly) according to Britney, they would have needed a superdooperultra-zoom camera in order to get any effect from her doing so
britney is such a whore. ugh.
but i heard otherwise about jt, hence the reason he dates all these older women (janet jackson, cameron diaz, et al)
Superfly From United States, joined May 2000, 26105 posts, RR: 74 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2007 times:
I wish Justin Timberlake would just get a job at a car wash or something so we'll never have to see him in the press ever again.
What a worthless untalented prick!
VSLover From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Feb 2004, 1877 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2002 times: