Porn interrupts Super Bowl TV coverage

[go west young man]

Source: The Gaurdian UK

Since Janet Jackson's bejewelled right nipple popped out during the half-time show at the 2004 Super Bowl, the term "wardrobe malfunction" has become part of the rich history of American football's showpiece event.

Yesterday, as this year's clash between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals neared a thrilling climax, TV viewers in Tuscon, Arizona, witnessed an intimate exposure of a completely different order.

Shortly after 7.30pm, with less than three minutes to play in a tightly fought final, the Cardinals had taken the lead with a crucial touchdown. Fans watching in Arizona would have been forgiven for scenting a victory for their team against the odds. Then the pictures from Tampa disappeared.

Instead, viewers in the Tuscon area were astonished to see a woman unzipping a man's trousers to reveal "full male nudity" followed by what was described as "a graphic act" between the couple. Somehow, the feed from Super Bowl XLIII had been mixed up with a 30-second excerpt from Club Jenna, an adult cable TV channel featuring Jenna Jameson, one of America's most famous porn actresses.

"I just figured it was another commercial until I looked up," Cora King, of Marana, told the Arizona Daily Star newspaper. "Then he did his little dance with everything hanging out."



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/02/superbowl-porn-arizona

---

Now that's entertainment!

[endarkenment]

1. how could anyone tell the difference?

[SmileyRose]

2. comcast ! LOL

wonder how much my cable rate will go up to cover the cost of the fines and lawsuits.

[Ian David]

15. You can't be fined for indecency on cable. Only on broadcast.

Which is why I wish they'd stop "bleeping" The Daily Show and other programs after 11 PM.

[Wabbajack_]

34. bleeps bleeping bleep

I want cussing and boobs on primetime.

[Ian David]

37. That's what "On Demand" is for. n/t

[ovidsen]

62. Comedy Central does have it's uncensored moments.

I was cable surfing around 3am (ET) here in Atlanta last month, trying to wait out my insomnia, and CC was airing a film of a standup by the late Richard Pryor.

Believe me, it was NOT censored. Much to my surprise and enjoyment.

As for the "bleeps" in the Daily Show... I'm not a professional lip reader, but it's obvious what word is being censored nearly every time Jon Stewart says it... or them.

Therefore, I think of the "bleeps" as kind of an UP YOURS from The Daily Show to any prudes who may have "accidentally" tuned in.

[ovidsen]

61. Yeah. Comcast.

Here in Atlanta, it's THE cable company. Famous for lousy service, indefensible "teaser" rates and an ongoing policy of "upgrading" basic services like the History Channel to digital in order to compel you to lease a converter from them. At an extra fee.

I used to live in New York City. And I actually miss Time Warner.

[merwin]

64. They're not trying to screw you. It's all about technology moving forward and bandwidth constraints.

It's re-organization of their systems, due to adding other features that run off of cable alongside the analog system (like phone/internet/on-demand/etc).

Here's a good article explaining it
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/06/6985.ars

They actually say that analog currently takes up 2/3 of the cable spectrum.

Basically, it's a necessity to get rid of analog cable to move into the future (there's only so many dump trucks you can fit through the tubes at once) :)

Same thing happened with cell phones. You can fit several times the amount of data in a digital stream vs an analog stream. AT&T Wireless switched to all digital because they needed more bandwidth for calls and internet services, using the previously analog 850mhz range.

I worked at T-Mobile for several years in engineering and various other departments... you learn a lot about the bandwidth constraints they have to deal with when every new technology comes out.

In short, they're not trying to screw you over, they're trying to switch to Digital completely in order to offer more services through cable, which makes customers happy and makes them money. Unfortunately, for those with basic cable, things aren't so fun.

[mrgerbik]

3. football followed by pr0n??

almost a perfect combination for some .. youd just need to follow that with a Ford truck advertisment, something to do with hot-wings and you'd probably have 'dudes' all over the place collapsing from over excitement.

[damntexdem]

14. Given what happened in the game in the next three minutes, viewers in Tucson may be forgiven ...

some premature ejaculations of "we won!"

[Hawkeye-X]

4. Here's the linky

NSFW - warning...

http://www.comcastsuperbowlporn.com

[SmileyRose]

6. page load error

the server had been blown :evilgrin:

[NoodleyAppendage]

31. Link worked for me...not much to see though. Just some guy swinging his pee-pee...no big deal. n/t

J

[Pharaoh]

5. kickin for later

O8)

[Renew Deal]

7. lol

:rofl:

[Regret My New Name]

8. Silly prank?

[K Gardner]

9. OMG !! Makes Janet's escapade look like Disneyworld ! Who will the fundies sue this time?

[radfringe]

10. gives a whole new meaning to the term "TOUCH DOWN"...n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Football

is a game of inches.

[Touchdown]

19. Hey! It was a secret. nobody knew!

Blabbermouth!:spank:

[AllyCat]

11. hahahha

"I just figured it was another commercial until I looked up," Cora King, of Marana, told the Arizona Daily Star newspaper. "Then he did his little dance with everything hanging out."

That's a great quote.

[paparush]

13. huhhuhhuh.. you said climax.. huhuhuh

[Ian David]

16. This link is working...

But it puts a black box over the penis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwDirC4jqVg

[kitty1]

17. Are you ready for some foot BALLS!

[superconnected]

18. This isn't cool at all since kids were watching it. I hope they can somehow be sued.

I doubt this was an accident.

And F-k all of you pervs who think this is a joke. I wouldn't want a little girl watching it. I'd have a big problem if I had a little kid sitting there watching that.

[maxsolomon]

20. who would do it deliberately?

comcast's competitors? a hacker? vastly complex systems increase the likelyhood of glitches.

[superconnected]

25. I work in IP tv and I have had this happen before - last summer but it

took a server migration we were backing off of to have it happen and parental controls had to have been all turned off. This does not happen normally especially on high volume times because we specifically won't touch ANYTHING during the super bowl. No one will.

And yeah it was likely not an accident. Someone had to throw a couple of switches for this to happen. That includes turning off parental controls because when people don't subscribe to porn it's blocked even if it suddenly shows up on a channel they are watching. they should have seen a black screen. Otherwise they would be able to flip channels 24x7 and seen porn on some of the channels. Parental controls look at the id of the program - the porn is in a whole different catagory and id than regular programing, so if they're watching cartoons and a stream changed to porn, it goes black unless their account subscribes to porn. People don't just start seeing porn even when it's streaming to them is what I'm saying. I only know this first had because it's my day job - I keep up servers streaming ip tv and I respond very quickly when someone says their parental controls stopped working. My point is the parental controls failing AND the stream changed is highly flipping unlikely.

For my incident last summer it was porn channels people could suddenly see if they tuned up to them, not a whole channel stream reset - which takes work on the server and the tv headend to make a new stream go to a channel. That takes a bunch of work. I can't do it in under 5 mintues and that's with exactly knowing what I'm doing. They sent a new stream AND turned off parental controls. So this is NO ACCIDENT.

My company was being threatened to be sued all over the place because customers were threatening to cancel their accounts costing each different tv provider money as well as threatening to sue for their kids seeing porn which still cost money in court even if they lose. But of course to see the porn these people had to turn to a porn channel. The stream suddenly being porn and parental controls being off isn't friggen likely unless it's intended. And, it's really not likely during the super bowl or any other big game when all upgrades are at a stand still.

[maxsolomon]

48. so, it's a practical joke?

by a disgruntled employee? or could it have been hacked?

yours is the only informative post in this entire thread.

[superconnected]

52. At my work - which is only ip tv people, we all agreed it was no accident.

We're thinking some person at the telco/tv provider that broadcasts to that area intentionally switched the stream and pulled the parental controls. Since the area is big on porn and porn is what tv providers make the most money off of(on demand porn is usually $15-$40 where as the regular movie is usally $5) it's most likely an advertisement for people to think about porn and rent it on demand. That area is BIG on porn. Other areas in the midwest are not. I believe that area is one of the biggest porn seller via tv in the US(Nevada being first). At least it is for the telcos(which provide tv and internet) that we keep the servers up for. I handle servers streaming tv all over America.

The other big thing here is timing. Nobody ever messes with the television network when something big is going on. The super bowl is the biggest event in most of America. That it happened during the super bowl pretty much says, it was intentional. Look at the audience profile for the super bowl. The most amount of guys who would buy porn suddenly see 30 seconds of porn at the one time during the entire year that they are most likely to be watching.

[guitar man]

59. I don't think it was an accident either

I work at a TV station.

I saw the vid last night and it looks to me like someone patched an analog signal into a digital encoder via a patchbay, left it for about 30 sec then unplugged it. For what reason, I don't know, but I find it highly suspicious that the unencrypted signal wound up on the superbowl feed right after the go ahead touchdown for the Cards.

[krabigirl]

26. True, but then again, seeing a dick flying around would be normal somewhere like Germany.

Somehow, we think it's OK for kids to watch extremely violent shows without flinching, but its only the penises that really scare everyone. lol.

Ansd I say this as a Mom. (no, I wouldn't want my kids seeing it, but I wouldn't freak out over it either.)

[superconnected]

28. I don't think the people who didn't subcribe to it and aren't used to it deserve it in their homes.

I like the fact that if anyone walks up to a kid and does this in real life they're going to prison as a sex offender. I guess I find that kind of funny. Not the poor kid it happens to, but the dumb shit adult who thinks this is acceptable or funny getting listed as a SO and spending some time in prison.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

27. Lol.

I saw WAY more than that growing up. My older brother used to show me porn when I was younger and somehow I ended up perfectly fine.
Plus, in many parts of Europe kids can see this type of stuff anytime they turn on the TV.

[theHandpuppet]

35. I don't think it's funny, either

So you're not alone.

[Why Syzygy]

63. If it was anything other

than an advert, most likely the porn guys would be seeking income from pirated use. :sarcasm:

[EndersDame]

21. This makes my twisted little heart smile

:) {{{: ) [])

[Divine Discontent]

22. it's funny for adults, but you realize thousands of little girls and boys saw this.

it's not like it was an art show, but a sex act, and he's flopping around his dick - I hope every parent was able to turn the channel or get the kids outta the room in time.

[EndersDame]

23. I agree not for kiddies...

I am sure responsible parents were able to do so.I think every parent with young children should supervise all television activity just in general so they know what their kiddos are absorbing and for situations like this one. I have no children nor do I live in a house with kiddos and I still find it funny

[Divine Discontent]

24. I'm thinking nearly all probably changed the channel in time. he was clothed to start and all.

[merwin]

29. Is it really a big deal?

It is easy enough to explain away to kids who do not know what sex is, and for those who do, how is it going to corrupt them?

Like going to a zoo and seeing the animals having sex. There was actually a kid who screamed out "look mom! they're stacking up!".

As long as the parent doesn't make a big deal about it, the kid won't either. it's not like seeing a penis for a few seconds will screw up a kid for life.

[Divine Discontent]

33. um, yeah, it's a big deal a 9 yr old girl shouldn't be seeing a 60" screen flapping of an erection.

[merwin]

50. Isn't that the definition of the Superbowl?

What was shown is nothing new to most 9 year olds these days who have ever used the internet without a strict filter. Popups and such assure that.

What was shown is nothing that is going to scar a kid, and it can even be a jumping off point for a sex-ed discussion (not to the extent of what was shown, of course). The kid is going to be exposed to something like this eventually (sooner than any parent would like). It's a blessing in a way that it happened where there were (hopefully) responsible adults around to either have a discussion or explain it away, depending on their age. I believe I stumbled across an issue of Penthouse when I was around that age.

The worst thing that any parent could possibly do is make a huge deal over it around their child and then not having a discussion with her, as that makes them even more curious as to what was going on.

BTW, what would you tell your 9 year old if she asked about an animal at a zoo with it's huge erection flapping around?

[Divine Discontent]

55. "It's a blessing" - oh yes, the porn being shown on the TV during the most watched program is a

BLESSING!

Pull yourself away from the computer, please. Never in my wildest dreams would I hear someone arguing that a guy swing around his engorged cock being called a "jumping off point for a sex-ed discussion".

Of course things happen that require an adult to handle the matter with honesty - a dude swinging around Mr One Eye McHappy is not something I want any little kid ever having to see. Let's keep them innocent as long as possible.

[merwin]

65. That's where we differ. I'm not into keeping kids as innocent as possible for as long as possible.

Kids are going to learn about sex, and it needs to be started early (and appropriately). Hopefully, if your kid is 9 years old, there would have already been the beginnings of a discussion about sexuality. While I wouldn't necessarily be happy if my son saw that, it's also not the end of the world.

The absolute worst thing a parent can do is ignore or refuse to talk about an incident such as this if the child asks what happened. That just teaches the child to not come to you for questions about sexuality.

Keeping them innocent as long as possible also keeps them ignorant as long as possible, and when uninformed kids are likely to make the wrong decision when it comes to sexuality (hormones override the rational brain, whether we like it or not). In my opinion, that's why Conservatives are so sexually repressed... because they were overprotected and not taught openly and honestly (and age-appropriately) about sex.

Here's a site that seems to offer age-appropriate methods, starting with age 6 to 10.
http://www.theporntalk.com/porntalk/talks.asp

And on the same page it has tips for talking to your child about it
http://www.theporntalk.com/porntalk/tips.asp
http://www.theporntalk.com/expert/detail.asp

And a closely related quote from that site:
"Oh my gosh! My child went to a friend's house and their Dad showed both of them some of his pornography. What should I do?
First and foremost sit down and talk with your child about what happened. It is okay for your child to see your disapproval, but do not overreact. Allow your child to explain in detail what exactly happened. Depending on what the answers are then it is time to talk to them about what they did when this happened. For example did they walk away, get embarrassed, feel guilty, or say nothing. These are the real issues. Your child’s feelings and reactions take precedence over everything else. After you have worked through the various feelings your child went through, then you can begin to discuss good solid things they can do if this ever happens again. Limit your child’s exposure to this family to prevent anymore accidents and if you feel comfortable call the other family and discuss your concerns about what happened."

[theHandpuppet]

36. It's not funny to this adult

But perhaps to some adults still stuck in adolescence it is. Even adults have the right to choose when/if/when/where they want to watch some guy waving his dick in their face.

[EndersDame]

56. I find the juxatposition quite humorous

Most likely it was just a prank but still I see it as a brilliant piece of satire making a statement about modern culture because the definition pornography is not exclusive to sex(i will also restate that it is totally inappropriate for kiddos) . I also have a juvenile sense of humor but don't see that as a bad thi

[Xenotime]

44. Mine too.

[EndersDame]

57. Nice to see other twisted souls

[xchrom]

30. i am never in the right place at the right time. nt

[Endangered Specie]

32. Funny I thought head and tail was a coin toss...

:evilgrin:

[Eryemil]

38. I don't see what the big deal is, it's just a penis

A little under half of the human population has one.

I will NEVER understand this backwards, illogical neurosis about what basically amounts to a few dozen square inches of tissue.

[theHandpuppet]

39. Okay, let me try another example

You're at a restaurant where you've planned to have dinner with your family. Right in the middle of your meal, a guy walks up to your table, unzips his pants and starts jerking his dick in your kids' faces. Still funny? After all, it's just as few square issues of tissue, right?

Frankly, I find some of the attitudes expressed here with regard to this incident rather disturbing. To me it exhibits the same kind of disrespect that reinforces behaviors that tell men it's no big deal to verbally assault women in public, to touch them without their consent, et al. Two important words to remember here: RESPECT and CONSENT. I don't give a hoot what folks CHOOSE to watch on their TVs, but the folks treated to that display weren't asked whether or not they wished to see a guy getting a blow job when they had expected to be watching a football game. I guess I fail to see the humor but even more I am disturbed by some of the responses here. I feel as if I took a wrong turn on my way to DU and ended up at a drunken frat party.

[Eryemil]

40. Are you fucking kidding me?

"To me it exhibits the same kind of disrespect that reinforces behaviors that tell men it's no big deal to verbally assault women in public"
Hahaha, don't make me fucking laugh. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read today, congratulations.

Now to answer your question:
"You're at a restaurant where you've planned to have dinner with your family. Right in the middle of your meal, a guy walks up to your table, unzips his pants and starts jerking his dick in your kids' faces. Still funny? After all, it's just as few square issues of tissue, right"

I do not think it's funny at all, nor offensive. Just a complete and utter non-issue.
I would simply tell him to please mind the soup and continue eating, as long as he minded our personal space otherwise I'd ask to have him removed from the restaurant.
I've seen so many penises in my life in every possible state of arousal that I doubt it'd hold my attention over dinner with my family.

My children would probably be curious at the act of masturbation itself though I would have hopefully explained it to them by then. They would have certainly seen naked people as well.

[theHandpuppet]

42. It may be a non-issue for you

But it is certainly an issue for others, not that you give a whit for their opinion or whether they have a right to decide when and where they choose to view such displays.

Some years ago, while doing some research at the Norfolk (VA) Public Library, a "gentleman" followed me to the stacks of rare books, then proceeded to unzip his pants and masturbate in my direction. I reported this to the assistant head librarian, a male, who simply laughed at my complaint and thought the whole incident really funny. Later, the head librarian called me into her office an apologized that her assistant treated the whole thing as a joke, and that the man who stalked me in the library would not be allowed back in. Two days later I returned to the library only to find the same man sitting at a table by the front door, sizing up his next targets. I never returned to that library. What the hell -- it's funny, right? I could relate any number of similar incidents that have happened throughout my life, but what the hey. A non-issue.

Yes, other folks have rights, too. I have the right to go to the library without having some guy follow me around while he masturbates. Folks have the right to sit down with their families to watch a football game without being treated to a film of a guy getting a blow job. RESPECT and CONSENT-- not a joke nor non-issue to me.

[Eryemil]

47. Consent!? Right!?

You speak as of public space as if it were your own body. Unless the guy is trying to feel you up or cumming on your toes I don't see a problem. Obviously you feel otherwise and that's OK. It is your prerogative but I will certainly never agree that the law should fall in favour of those that seek to restrict the actions of others simply because they find them offensive; be it visual acts like nudity and sex or verbal like racial/homophobic/sexist/etc slurs.

From the beginning I acknowledged that many find nudity and sexuality in general offensive, in fact my very first comment was directed at those very same people. I obviously think their point of view is moronic but I would be the first to agree that they have a right to it.

You do not own the public arena and should have absolutely NO right restrict the actions of others so that you can only hear and see things you find 'decent' and 'moral' based solely on these or similar criteria.

That said.
In this particular case the fault lies with the company, considering the sort of service they provide. However I do not think they should be held responsible for it, at least not legally. If the person is unhappy with their services it is their right to change it.

[merwin]

53. The fault lies with the guy who switched the feeds. It was only the analog feed at that one station,

and didn't affect the feed they sent to the satellite providers, so it was probably someone who currently/used to work for Comcast that tapped into it on an external junction point and sent one channel to be broadcast over another one. Analog cable is not that difficult to hack.

Sounds more like a stupid prank than anything else.

[merwin]

51. Someone coming up to you and masturbating in front of you is far different than what happened here.

This was an accidental (or malicious) porn clip. Akin to a child stumbling across a copy of Hustler.

It'll scar them about as much as them walking up to the TV while a violent scene in 24 is playing. It's a far bigger deal to the parent than the child. There were no intercourse or blowjobs involved, just a swinging penis.

[Divine Discontent]

41. wastin' ur time!

"as long as he minded our personal space" --- ic. to think they're being serious about that - a guy masturbating in the restaurant around a child and this person would just look away once they saw it and tell their kids he's masturbating, now continue your meals and respect his personal space, means you're wasting your time...

[theHandpuppet]

43. Yes, I realize that now

It's probably pointless to even debate this issue.

[Eryemil]

46. By that I mean as long as he did not try to touch my family or jizz on my meal

I am definitely serious and I resent your implication otherwise.

[Divine Discontent]

54. you resent the implication that I stated you were serious, and there's no point in arguing with you?

whatever. Relax, I didn't call you perverted, I didn't call you names, I didn't say you were an oddball for saying it wouldn't bother you - I SAID there's no point in her trying to convince you that what you say you'd be some guy doing with his private parts near your children is really something they shouldn't be around.

[daggahead]

45. Although Arizona fans were let down that the Cardinals lost ...

... I'm going to assume there was a "happy ending" somewhere on Tucson televisions.

[libodem]

49. That's so whack

In the lounge we were joking about a Springsteen, wardrobe malfunction, and I quipped that HIS zipper was going to pop open and we would see HIS junk. I was just a few degrees wrong. PORN? No way that's crazy.

[marlakay]

58. My husband says accident or not comcast should have to pay

for their mistake. Janet didn't do it on purpose either. Let's see comcast that won't even allow msnbc on many of their markets squeeze out of this one.

I keep wondering if some liberal pissed at them hacked into their system.

[merwin]

60. Cable is not subject to FCC language regulations.

And since this only happened on cable, not Over-the-Air broadcast, they are not required to pay anything.