NBC Features Brainless Segment on Topless Book

  • Bookmark and Share

Hats off to “Today.” Oh wait, maybe that should be “Tops off.” On August 3, the morning show promoted the book “Uncovered,” by Jordan Matter, despite what the book covered, or rather, what the book did not cover.

The book is a collection of photographs of, as Meredith Vieira explained, “average women willing to bare it all for the sake of equality.” And NBC had no qualms about devoting a more than five minute segment to promoting Matter’s “art.”

 It began when “photographer Jordan Matter set out to see how his fellow New Yorkers would handle a little breast.”

“There was this whole taboo issue around women’s bodies,” Matter explained, “and the most public way to address that issue would be to photograph it publicly.”

How that promoted equality or strengthened women is a mystery. And while the book may have attempted to address the issue of body image that is indeed a problem with women, it objectified women’s bodies while it attacked and mocked the idea of modesty.

The segment cited a 1992 ruling which made it legal for women to go topless in New York State, and Vieira beamed, “Some may never exercise that right … But many seem liberated.”

“It started initially with the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction,” Matter explained, “And we were taught to believe this was an extravagant thing that we were all to be ashamed of. And so I started photographing people in the streets of New York to see the reaction. What happened was, it soon became a liberating experience for the women I was photographing to the point that I hadn't expected that at all.”

But liberated from what? It became obvious in the segment that “Uncovered” has linked itself to the modern feminist movement, “liberating” women from the “bonds” of modesty.

Matter defended his use of a picture of a nine-year old girl. “…what it represents to me is a question of at what point does a girl become a woman and learn that her body is something that needs to be covered up and something she needs to be ashamed of?”

But Matter’s conclusion that modesty and covering up is linked to shame is wrong. Rather, modesty demonstrates an inherent respect and pride for the beauty of the female body and recognizes the respect owed to women, a respect that arises from something other than their bodies.

Objectification, not shame, is the major issue with women’s bodies. But Matter’s “art” project promoted objectification, even if it was an unintended consequence.

“Alright, some lingered, admired the view,” Vieira admitted, and Matter related a story of how one man came up to him and thanked him. The segment also featured two men commenting on the project, “You gotta enjoy yourself in life, that’s what it’s about. We’re only passing through. We’re only a number,” and pointing to the woman posing topless, “She’s got two lovely numbers.”

Doesn’t really sound like a blow was struck for equality.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NBC

National BOOB Central

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

Apparently I just don't understand.

I just don't get it.  Taking pictures of topless women in public places isn't raunchy, it is "enlightened" behavior?

Boy I must be behind the times.

Don't forget that NBC's

Don't forget that NBC's customer base is the type of people that will buy this book. So NBC is just pandering to their base. 

"DumbAssity of Dope"

Who does this Jordan Matter

think he is, Bull O'Really?

But Matter’s conclusion

But Matter’s conclusion that modesty and covering up is linked to shame is wrong. Rather, modesty demonstrates an inherent respect and pride for the beauty of the female body and recognizes the respect owed to women, a respect that arises from something other than their bodies.

But you understand that's YOUR interpretation, and many other people's, but doesn't mean it has to be everybody's. There are people who believe that women have been taught to be ashamed of their bodies, and so you get a backlash in reaction sometimes. Spending so much time on this book is unnecessary, IMO, though. And I'm not sure that the artist is making as big a statement as they think.

Where's the liberal media

Where's the liberal media bias? 

"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan

Nice scam if you can get it

“There was this whole taboo issue around women’s bodies...”

WAS? So he singlehandedly put that antiquated thing to rest.

And how is a topless photo of a nine-year-old not child porn?

Sol

I had the same thought!

NC:

I guess it's the "Art" defense.

double

double

Exactly

This child's parents and this photographer need to be arrested for child porn.

djdave:

A few months back, 16 yr old Miley Cyrus posed for those kinda racy Annie Leibowitz photos and there was a major shitstorm. Especially from Disney.

And she wasn't even showing anything. Her father is still an asshat for letting her do it, however - I sure as heck would not have allowed it. If you ever watched the A&E documentary series "Hillbillies" you would have heard host Billy Ray C. describe himself as just "simple mountain folk."

Until he get to LA, I guess.

Okay, I'll bite.  Which

Okay, I'll bite.  Which definition of pornography does this photo belong:

: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction  

"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan

What took you so long?

Go download some "innocent" nudes of 3rd graders and get back to me before your sentencing.

Kennedy:

Just one more thing: you can be counted on to take a contrary view on virtually anything that's posted on NB, and that's fine, but if you have kids as I do, this is one topic that no one is going to "debate" you on here - you will be shooting yourself in the foot point blank with a 12 gauge.

Hang onto whatever credibility you have left here and take the high road for once, K? 

SoL... When it comes to

SoL...

When it comes to your last sentence...

You're asking for the impossible.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

BT:

I'm in a very magnanimous mood, it's been a truly beautiful day here after a miserable rainy weekend.

I don't really don't think anybody wants to push this idiotic viewpoint. But if it happens, watch for my new signature line;  I am up-to-here with all this. You have to draw a line SOMEWHERE, and for me, it's kids.

SoL... I couldn't agree

SoL...

I couldn't agree more.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

High road? Like when you

High road? Like when you told a fellow conservative poster who happened to be Native American to go back in his tent and smoke a peace pipe? 

"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan

SoL - love your skoolin' of the Ken doll.

Would add just one thing to your last sentence:

"Hang onto whatever credibility you have left here and take the high road for once, K pumpkin?"

SOL, do you really want this

SOL, do you really want this site to be completely one sided where NO ONE ever takes the other side of the argument?  That would leave us with either a really boring society or a really pissed off, grumpy group of bloggers who only want to gripe about the world around them and never do anything about it, because they're too busy blogging about it day in and day out.  It sure is easy to talk about what's wrong with the world from the comfort of your own computer desk.

Now here's my point of view.  I don't care to see these photos because I'm simply not interested.  I'd also like to pose the question that asks has anyone seen this photo collection?  Aside from the questionable photo of the 9 year old, are the rest of the photos offensive in any way?  Sure, everyone is welcome to critique another man's art, but I'm betting quite a few upstanding citizens of many political affiliations will appreciate the work in this collection.  As for the images of the child, when reading the definitions for pornography that I posted above from Mirriam-Websters, can you honestly say any of the 3 accurately define the photo in question?  The photo may be in bad taste, but I wouldn't say it's pornographic.  But I guess that's for the FBI to decide, eh?  Compare this book to the works of H.R. Geiger and it'll look like Winnie the Pooh illustrations.

"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan

Kennedy: Websters: nude photo of your 3rd grader NOT PORN

Have you no civility or common sense whatsoever?

You are really going to go there... I gotta say, I'm actually shocked. You and I have had back forths, you bust me, I bust you back. It would be boring here if there were a single viewpoint, as I initially indicated by saying that it's fine with me that you always take a dissenting view on whatever is posted here. 

But this is NOT a "critique of another man's art." So here we go:

You initially responded to my comment that why would a topless photo of a NINE-YEAR OLD not be classified as kiddie porn? I could give a flying sh*t what the other images in this "collection" were. So don't give me BS about "aside from the questionable photo of the 9-yr old"... the kid is all we're discussing here.

So like you, I could care less about any of other photos. If I wanted to see nude beef jerky, I could just look up the latest Madonna photos. What we are discussing here is, once again, is ONLY the 9-yr old.

And please, don't pull the Mirriam-Webster definition card on me on how to define porn - it really doesn't get any lamer than that. I know what the f*ck porn is, and if a photo of my young daughter (and yeah, I have one) were to show up anywhere, quoting a dictionary is going to guarantee whoever a quick trip to the emergency room or worse.

So cut the crap - apologize for your extraordinary insensitivity on my very narrow point that 9-yr olds - yours, mine, whoever's -  should be off-limits for this type of thing... I am not your enemy here, but I am warning you, if you persist with this, I will become the avenging angel that you do not want, and everyone here will know what you stand for. Then your back and forths will become, let's say, rather limited. Please don't think I am not deadly serious.

There is still time, so let's remain just adversaries....avail yourself of this golden opportunity: agree as a sensible adult that 9 yr old girls are not legitimate subjects for nude photography no matter what the circumstances. I don't care about anything else. One of you guys actually admitting you were wrong would be a refreshing change around here, you know?

– your pal, Sen. Sick O'Libs 

ps: don't blow it, cause we're not revisiting this. 

You've given yourself a new

You've given yourself a new title!  Can I assume you're meaning Sen. to be Senator, or is the Senior?  Not sure...anyway...

The funny thing (and I usually like to start with the funny thing) is that I agree with pretty much everything you said here.  I could go without the anger, but I find that most responses to my posts are generally angry.  I suppose what I failed to do here is present my feelings that I don't condone the photo (which again, I haven't seen and don't plan to).  If I had a daughter, I would wholeheartedly decline any invitation for her to participate in such a photo shoot, and probably knock the guy out who made the request.  I have a nice Louisville Slugger with my name on it.  Still, with an extremely open mind I can see the artist's point of view, while still disagreeing with the desire or action thereof shooting the photo in discussion - a 1 year old child is okay to shoot topless.  So is a 2, 3, 4-year old.  At what age is it no longer acceptable?  Philosophically, it's an interesting question.  Still, I don't care to see the results.  Now, you must know that nudists share a different outlook on nudity than most other people.  Do you think it's possible that the subject in this photo was raised by nudists, or hippies, or some other free loving, natural living family who thinks of the photo as something of beauty and art and has not even the slightest inkling of consideration that people could even look at the photo in a sexual way?  I'm certain that there are people out there, quite a few in fact, who will view the photo in the filthiest way, but there has to be someone at the other end of the spectrum as well.

There's one more part of this story that is lacking, and I think we'll probably find out soon if anything is to be done.  If the law considers this to be child porn, why haven't they done anything about it?  Publishing a photo of such a young kid in this way has to grab the attention of some D.A., the FBI, a mayor, senator...someone!  If in fact this fits the LEGAL definition of child porn, the artist, publisher, and anyone who purchases the book will be arrested.  Do you disagree? 

"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan

it WAS a whole taboo issue

seriously, wtf does that even mean?  whatever it means, it no longer exists, all because of this dressed-up Girls Gone Wild pre-vert?

You don't know about the "Nudist Card"?

Ask Kennedy above - he just introduced a whole new class of card - the "It's OK, We're Nudists" Card.

Matter defended his use of

Matter defended his use of a picture of a nine-year old girl. “…what it represents to me is a question of at what point does a girl become a woman and learn that her body is something that needs to be covered up and something she needs to be ashamed of?”

No, it's a question of when does a sicko like this guy ever learn to draw a line in expressing his, oh so enlightened "art". 

A nine-year old girl?  That's just sick!  Where does it say, in that 1992 "ruling" (what that hell is a "ruling"?) that it's ok to photograph a topless nine-year old girl?

why is it ok to photograph a topless nine-year old girl?

Just wait for the answer - the gangs all here.

I'm sure it will be great. 

True beauty

Modesty and covering up are linked to true beauty.  We have a fallen human nature which needs to be kept in check rather than be deliberately satiated.  There can only be a spiraling degeneration with the latter.  

 

Excellent Point

Great point, like the epidemic of STDs we have in this country. What is it, one in four women have an STD?  How is that liberation and empowerment?  Sounds like misery and bondage to me.

A little restraint goes a long way toward civility.  Without civility we can't have a civilization.

              

               NBC is the pimp and Vieira is the whore. I'll bet I don't get called to be on " who wants to be a millionare" any time soon.                                             Patriot & Proud!

Self Respect

My amazing mom (now deceased) was of the 'greatest generation.'  She taught me to have respect for myself, which includes being clothed.  I taught my daughter to respect herself also. (Must admit that I sometimes wear a top that has a bit of cleavage for my hubby.)

Respecting oneself is part of a whole package that includes not getting oneself into compromising situations.  It also includes a kind of dignity that is so rare in young women these days.  Most of all self-respect is about the mother being a fine example to the daughter.  Obviously this is almost non-existent in pop culture/society (just look at how moms allow their small daughters to dress).

Sorry, I am very passionate about this subject.  Was a Youth Pastor for years and took action when 'my girls' did not show up on Wed. nights with their assets covered. Always kept a huge UGLY t-shirt(s) for them to wear over their inappropriate clothing.

Last thing, WOW, SoL, you are a magnificent firebrand and hope you have cause the Ken doll to think deeper than usual.  Don't want to get involved in the above battle of wits (Ken you shouldn't bring a match to a flamethrower fight!)

I tawt I taw.....

...a puddy tat.

I did!  I did see a puddy tat!

-- Tweety Bird's offering a little light-hearted tat for tit in the midst of these weighty discussions.

As Sylvester might reply, "Thuffrin' thuckotash!"

 

"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...