A Real “Malfunction”: The New York Times’ Well-Intentioned Investigative Misfire
In an otherwise well-intentioned reach for more depth and context on some serious topics, the Times loses the plot.
The New York Times Presents documentary series, on the FX network, recently sought to bring closure and new perspective to the controversy that was the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show. This was the performance that featured pop stars Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake and introduced the terms “wardrobe malfunction” and “Nipplegate” to the world. That malfunction and discussions of indecency in the media dominated the news cycle for a bit. Not all of the facts of that matter were entirely clear at the time, however, and, as so often happens, the public’s attention moved on before things were ever fully sorted out or put into any greater societal perspective. Surely after seventeen years, the same news organization that brought us the Pentagon Papers could straighten this all out — and figure out if a bra cup was rigged to come off, or not? Well, apparently not.
“…to be fair, there are other news organizations out there that provide fodder for essays like this weekly.”
With its 95-minute video report, “Malfunction: The Dressing Down of Janet Jackson,” the Times does indeed address important issues regarding race and gender that have come into greater focus in the ensuing years. Unfortunately, in getting to those larger topics, the Times committed a pretty grievous error of investigative journalism: it failed to investigate. That is, somehow the details of the entire heart of the matter, that “malfunction,” are almost entirely glossed over or ignored, and baseless assumptions are treated as fact. Those flaws badly detract from and otherwise undermine the rest. How can anyone understand exactly how fairly or unfairly Jackson or Timberlake have been treated if it hasn’t even been made clear what they did?
The Times’ other installments in this series have largely been solid, but its failure here is not only significant, but it may also be symptomatic of bigger problems facing the media today. That is, trying to connect one story into much larger, historical trends, and especially race and gender, without obvious, “smoking gun” evidence of conscious bigotry, is no small challenge. That Jackson, a Black woman, would ultimately see her career suffer far more from the halftime incident than Timberlake, a white male, is important to report and explain, and which the Times does, to an extent. And to be fair, there are other news organizations out there that provide fodder for essays like this weekly. But the bottom line in “Malfunction” is that the Times overreached and lost its focus. When journalistic standards slip, as here, the inevitable result is factual errors, decreased credibility, and a report with a greatly diminished impact.
The Alleged Malfunction
So, what happened? As many will recall, the infamous “malfunction” came when Jackson (also the sister of Michael and the rest of the Jackson 5 clan) headlined the mega-spectacle that is the N.F.L.’s annual Super Bowl Halftime Show, while Timberlake (also previously of the hugely successful “boy band,” *NSYNC) appeared as a surprise guest. The N.F.L. is known for being intensely protective of its image as all-American entertainment, especially so with this annual live showcase. With some 90 million viewers every year, the Super Bowl is the most-watched television show in America and the time when the league reaches out to an audience far beyond its regular fanbase. To keep things as controversy-free as possible, the halftime shows are tightly monitored and approved ahead of time by the powers that be. In 2004, this included network host CBS, as well as the producer of the Halftime Show, MTV.
For the performance, Jackson and her backup dancers were exciting and certainly sexy, but within limits. Jackson wore a black leather outfit, including a black bustier, with part of a red, lace bra visible sticking out above that. Timberlake then appeared with Jackson for the last song, his own “Rock Your Body.” On the last word of the last line of that song, “gotta have you naked by the end of this song,” Timberlake reached across Jackson and, oddly, pulled off just the part of her outfit covering her right breast, exposing Jackson’s bare breast, to include her nipple, and which, also oddly, seemed to be decorated with something metallic, that did not cover her nipple, but was more visible than a ring. The nudity was clear enough, although the shot was not a close-up and lasted for just half of a second. Both performers seemed surprised, although it was also not clear whether each was simply acting. The lights cut out and the set was over.
Few immediately knew exactly what to make of that ending, but most assumed that Jackson and Timberlake had just used the world’s biggest stage for a massive publicity stunt. There was, and not too surprisingly, a large, negative, public outcry, and a media frenzy quickly took hold. Jackson, however, was nowhere to be found for any comment for the rest of the evening. Presumably in part because she was the headlining performer, she was more of the focus. Timberlake did apologize immediately after the show, stating that his understanding was that only Jackson’s bra would be exposed. The next day, Jackson apologized, and she too stated that her intention had only been to expose her bra and that the nudity was entirely accidental.
As the Times report also explained, in 2004, the culture wars were in full effect. In particular, the conservative Parents Television Council had already been putting pressure on the FCC to enforce existing rules for indecency on broadcast television and radio. The Super Bowl halftime fiasco thus did spark a crackdown and led to certain repercussions such as, for example, popular shock-jock radio personality Howard Stern headed to satellite radio.
This quite simple question of an accidental or intentional malfunction is perhaps a bit of a comical focus for any serious investigation, but it is the heart of the entire story. Without an adequate answer to this very simple question, it is impossible to accurately determine either Jackson or Timberlake’s roles, or what fair consequences might have been for either.
There are only two possible explanations. The first is that Timberlake was supposed to pull the leather bustier off of Jackson’s right breast to reveal only the cup of the red bra, but the bra cup accidentally came off. Just exposing the bra would have been a bit shocking and risqué, but would not have violated FCC regulations. The second explanation is that the incident was a very calculated decision to expose Jackson’s entire breast, knowing there would be an uproar and almost historic publicity.
Say What?
“… the cups of both the bustier and the bra came off clean as can be, and with zero effort on Timberlake’s part.”
Again, throughout the report, the Times either operated under an assumption that the nudity was accidental or otherwise implied that the facts were simply too unclear to ever figure out so-let’s-just-sort-of-move-on. Times reporter Jenna Wortham asserted, for example, and amongst other things, that Jackson’s distraught demeanor immediately after the incident just “didn’t feel scripted.” What actually happens is that the Times conflates a bias in examining the malfunction itself, versus a bias in how Jackson would be mistreated career-wise over the incident. There is plenty to support the latter, but as to the former, the focus of this essay, there is a long litany of facts plainly suggesting that the nudity was very likely scripted:
1) It was odd, to say the least, that those particular parts of both the bustier and the bra came off together, in one, quick swipe, accidentally.
2) Also odd, the bra cup clearly did not seem to be attached to the rest of the bra. That is, the red bra appeared to be a normal bra, although, if that was the case, when it was ripped off then the rest of the bra obviously would have been pulled apart, as well. Yet there was no sign of any tearing of the fabric or of strands of fabric being stretched. In fact, the cups of both the bustier and the bra came off clean as can be, and with zero effort on Timberlake’s part.
Really, a reasonable analysis of the malfunction, itself, could and should stop here. But there is more.
3) Odd that Timberlake would not know where exactly he could safely grab the bustier but not the bra if that was the plan.
4) Odd that Jackson happened to be wearing nipple jewelry — not a nipple ring, but rather a piercing with an attached, metallic “sunburst”-shaped piece called a “nipple shield.” This on the breast about to be accidentally exposed on the Super Bowl halftime show. In fact, according to the Times’ report, Jackson’s stylist had obtained that “nipple shield” two days before the show.
5) Odd that Wortham asserted that it would be entirely wrong to assume that the nipple jewelry was anything other than something Jackson wore “just for herself.” In fact, to assume otherwise, Wortham claimed, could only be seen as a furtherance of the long history of sexual exploitation of Black women (which is an enormous and serious topic).
So why would Jackson’s stylist obtain this “nipple shield” for Jackson while preparing his client’s styling two days before the show-of-all-shows? Did Jackson happen to say right then, right before the Super Bowl, “Hey stylist, grab me a cool new nipple shield for my right nipple? It is solely for my personal enjoyment, of course, but please pick one out for me”? Did Jackson own any other such pieces? (The report does not mention it, but the person identified as selling the stylist the “shield” was interviewed by USA Today and claimed both that only one of a two-shield set was purchased, and that the stylist alerted them to something happening at the Super Bowl.)
All of these points, 1) — 5), needed to at least have been addressed, if not answered. Still, Wortham speculated assuredly, essentially ignoring it all.
6) Also, odd that, at one point, Wortham claimed that “this white man,” Timberlake, had personally “just taken away” Jackson’s career momentum and nearly her entire career. Wortham literally pointed a finger (a thumb actually) as she spoke, so as to accentuate that she was assigning all personal accountability to Timberlake. And, to be clear, this was not a generalized reference to white men in power or a larger, unjust power system (potentially worthy targets in other aspects of this story), and nor was she saying Timberlake merely played a role in the incident. Wortham quite clearly stated that Timberlake, a white man, was the cause of the controversy and Jackson’s resultant problems.
The given facts do not support any such thing. First, there is every reason to believe that whatever was planned, it either came from Jackson or, and at a bare minimum, her involvement was entirely willing. It was Jackson’s headlining performance, for one thing, and it is a bit inconceivable that Timberlake would not only have come up with the idea, but he then somehow pressured Jackson into going along with it. At the absolute worst, Timberlake could only be fifty-percent to blame.
Also, as to any incentive for either artist to engage in such a publicity stunt. Jackson seemed to have more at stake, although each could have perceived a benefit. A terrible decision or not, it is not often an entertainer could instantly make themselves the world’s lead news story, and remembered practically forever.
Jackson was 37 at the time and, because she is a female pop star, that was seen as impacting her career trajectory (and, yes, that is entirely unfair). As the Times reported, Jackson was facing pressure to continue to stay relevant to a younger crowd, and the Super Bowl was a prime opportunity to do that. Timberlake, however, had just turned 23 the day before the Super Bowl, and he was already a major star from his recent boy-band days. His solo career was soaring even higher — he was even expected to win multiple Grammy awards at that televised show one week later. Appearing as a guest on the halftime spectacle would only bolster that ascendancy, with or without such a risky stunt. In an interview immediately after the show, that was Timberlake’s position: “I feel like I don’t need publicity like [the nudity].”
7) Odd that if this was an embarrassing though sincere mistake, why didn’t Jackson shed light on that fact right away? Instead, she was nowhere to be found, and then when she did apologize, she claimed the removal of the bra cup was an accident, which was unconvincing to most.
Jackson’s lack of an apology for the nudity compounded her difficulties. In fact, with that Grammy show also to be broadcast by CBS, then-CBS head Les Moonves reportedly required personal apologies from both Jackson and Timberlake before he would let either appear on that show. Timberlake gave the personal apology and appeared on the show while collecting two major awards. Jackson would not apologize and was not at the show.
8) Finally, it is odd that the Times and Wortham seemed to give little weight to the words of one interviewee that had been in the middle of the whole thing, the MTV executive in charge of the halftime show, Salli Frattini. Frattini quoted Timberlake as having apologized at the time for the nudity, saying he thought only the bra would be exposed (though even this was presented somewhat vaguely and confusingly: “That was never meant to happen. I was told you guys knew.”). Frattini also stated (and also still a bit ambiguously) that she believed that Jackson and her stylist planned the full nipple exposure.
Based on all of the above, there is strong evidence that Jackson planned the nudity. As to Timberlake, he was clearly part of a “malfunction,” though the evidence is perhaps not quite as clear as to his role in the nudity. In 2006, he (somewhat ambiguously) suggested the responsibility was “50–50,” though the half of what exactly he is referring to has never been clarified.
Missed Opportunities
Getting beyond that malfunction, what about the career damage that Jackson endured, and that Timberlake did not? And what about any accountability of those corporate players?
As the documentary notes, even then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell has since stated that he believed that Jackson paid far too steep of a price. Again, however, in the report, because it was not made clear what exactly Jackson had even done, this inquiry failed to fully connect. Some important points are made, or at least broached, though those probably need more in-depth attention than what they were given here.
For example, as to the N.F.L. and CBS, in hiring notoriously controversy-friendly MTV, and acts such as Jackson, rappers Nelly and P. Diddy, and rap-rocker Kid Rock (who all drew their own various complaints, as well), they could not exactly have been shocked that something happened. Still, this lineup did bring extra excitement and greater interest from a younger demographic that the show might not otherwise have had. Also, CBS did not have to pay the FCC fines levied against it for the nudity, in part because Jackson and Timberlake were considered independent contractors.
For Jackson, everyone all but abandoned her in the Halftime aftermath, including her label, Virgin Records. This even after her previous record sales had helped Virgin Records owner Richard Branson to buy an island. Literally. And a subsequent de facto “blacklisting” of Jackson on radio and TV would derail a once-superstar-level career for years to come.
And what then about the intense moral condemnation of Jackson? For those that grew up watching cable TV, or the ultra-violent N.F.L. (which, by the way, has since been shown to have covered up evidence of how much more brain damage is caused by playing football than ever previously realized), the league’s omnipresent beer commercials, and not to mention now the mainstreaming of sports gambling, and the whole nipple thing maybe does not seem so outrageous. Also of note, Moonves has since been forced to step down from CBS due to multiple women’s allegations of sexual misconduct. This is all certainly compelling, and already substance for some other reports, and for some yet unmade.
As the report also did address, it is hard to gauge precisely how much it hurt Jackson. Jackson was already a couple of years past her tremendous artistic and commercial peak, for example, so some decline would seem natural. More recently, Jackson has enjoyed what many believe to have been a long-overdue career rehabilitation. She was even inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2019.
In sum, this report certainly brought fresh attention and a new perspective to the Halftime Show controversy. One would hope that every news entity would strive to get past the “hot take” and “click-bait” world we find ourselves in, and provide badly needed and greater context in stories. Still, the Times investigative failures, here, are important. Without a realistic accounting of the actions of the persons involved, the rest of the investigation falls entirely flat. It all feels something like building a home on wet sand. As a result, the takeaways of the report may be more of those reporting malfunctions than any of the other points. And that is a shame.
Bibliography
CBS Corp. v. FCC, 535 F. 3d 167, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2008.
Fainaru-Wada, M. (2014, March 7). How the NFL worked to hide the truth about concussions and brain damage [excerpt]. Scientific American. Retrieved December 8, 2021, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-nfl-worked-to-hide-the-truth-about-concussions-and-brain-damage-excerpt/.
Henderson, C. (2018, December 5). Les Moonves: New allegation follows report saying ex-CBS boss destroyed evidence. USA Today. Retrieved December 8, 2021, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2018/12/05/les-moonves-allegedly-destroyed-evidence-sexual-misconduct-inquiry/2210456002/.
Justin Timberlake looking back at the Super Bowl … — youtube. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAOen_7Vz3g.
Peter, J. (2021, October 20). ‘nipplegate’ revisited: What really happened between Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake? USA Today. Retrieved December 10, 2021, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/01/31/nipplegate-revisited-what-really-happened-between-janet-jackson-and-justin-timberlake/1083557001/.
