I mean..., I still cannot believe it is a new
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertai...at-super-bowl/
And then, at the bottom of the article we can read...
“The obscene gesture in the performance was completely inappropriate, very disappointing, and we apologize to our fans,” McCarthy said.

If it was AC/DC or Metallica they would have to ban the whole concert...

a middle finger...
obscene, inappropriate and disappointing...

if at least she had shown something more "interesting" then well...

But now seriously,
why can this totally unimportant thing be a new?
What is the sociological part of this happening, that I'm not getting?
Or is there something against that singer or Madonna?
Or is it a new so that some other important news are not looked at?

It is against the FCC rules (which have the force of law) to say certain words, show certain body parts or gestures on broadcast TV. Asking if it is "new" is besides the point.

Your question also comes from your view of such things in European culture rather than American culture.
We often have debates in America regarding the contradiction in thinking that sex, language can somehow be detrimental to those who see them (especially children) but do not really restrict depictions of violence which are arguably more damaging. However, even someone like me who regularly watches cable TV without those restrictions placed on broadcast TV understand that there is a time and a place for things. If you go to an M.I.A., Metallica or AC/DC concert and are shocked at their behavior on stage you're a fool. If however you're watching a live TV broadcast in which past controversies and subsequent regulations have made it clear there is an expected restraint by performers then it is a problem. Personally I don't give a damn about seeing Janet Jackson's breast or M.I.A.'s finger but I do believe that performers in such a venue know quite well what is acceptable and simply choose to flout the law and should therefore be held accountable.

Your question is much like me asking "Why would anyone would be dumb enough to support ETA in Spain?" It shows a lack of understanding of the culture in which the issue exists or worse yet an imposition of your values on this other culture. I wasn't raised in Spain and am not of Basque heritage so couldn't really "feel" things about the culture that you might.

So “M.I.A. used a middle finger shamelessly to bring controversial attention to herself, while effectively telling an audience filled with children, ‘F- you.’”.

Hmm, just after she shows off her nickers, and they are worried about the finger? I'd love to know what they would say if anybody put mics on the players, I'd bet you would hear far worse than 'f-you'.

I find it funny that a girl giving the crowd the finger is so offensive. When you are watching a 'game' played by grown men, dressed in tight clothing, fighting over a bit of pigskin, who grope each other on camera? Bring back long shorts and canvas shirts with enormous collars, and stop all displays of 'camaraderie' on the field.

Maybe football would be safe for the youth of america then. Or at least 'safer'.

When did the middle finger become offensive?Is it even new? Nope not at all.

I see the reasoning but I think that a group that can Kill and a middle finger are far from being comparable.
Both can be lack of understanding, but the effect of a middle finger has nothing to do with the effect of a gun.

Even understanding FCC rules, that's exactly the problem, I really don't (can't) believe that US people, most of them, are disappointed by that middle finger, or is that so?
really?
If it is like that, then you are right, I really have a lack of understanding of that culture. I also think I'm not the only one.

Remember that the Puritans came to the United States. Their perfidious influence continues to this day.

You can see and hear school children at any U. S. school bus stop doing and saying things that would be banned on U. S. broadcast television. I'm not saying that I approve of profane school children, but it points out the hypocrisy and silliness of broadcast television regulation.

This whole kerfuffle is silly and stupid, much like the average Super Bowl half-time show.

There are various gestures that would not produce a passing glance in some parts of the planet, that might get you killed in another. And beyond that, there are differences. For instance: does shaking your head up-and-down mean "yes," or does it mean "no?" Depends on where you're at.

Personally, I think that we tend to go a little too far in our efforts to avoid possibly offending "anybody." Even to the point of becoming rather silly about it. But, "in the Facebook age," where "things go viral" whether you want them to or not, maybe better safe than infamous.

How good is your lip reading? http://clutch.mtv.com/2012/01/23/ste...uper-bowl-gif/

Important news? You mean like the economy persistently teetering on the edge of disaster? Massive debt threatening to permanently keep us in the pockets of foreign interests?

Heavens no, those aren't news worthy. Better to focus on some hot chick who flipped off the camera.

---

There's your answer.

Bang heads together and break knees up and down a grass field for a couple hours, but do not - under any circumstances - expose us to profanity or sexual innuendo. (Well, unless it's a commercial.)

This is a fascinating topic. A thumbs-up works in Egypt or China, but never do it in Iraq or Thailand!

And the classic British reversed v-for victory (index and middle fingers extended, back of the hand out, with an upwards thrust) has no meaning in the US, but when I was in England (40 years ago--I'm old) was equivalent to the middle finger in the US.

One four-letter word referring to female anatomy, which was in fairly common informal usage back then in England as m-f was in the States, is absolutely verboten in the US.

The "okay" sign, (a circle of the thumb and forefinger, other fingers extended, palm out) will get a beating in some cultures.

Profanity is quite culture-bound.

Yes it is and it shows that even in the English speaking western hemisphere what is acceptable in one country can land you in hot water in another.

There is that. I'm make more of a comment, but its likely to turn into a rant......and its depresing.

Dunno how 'hot' M.I.A. is, shes looks kinda ordinary even with the professional makeup artists. Still, rather I'd rather snog her than Madonna *shudders*

LOL, thanks, I hadnt seen that.

Its meant that for a long, long time. All thsoe shots of Churchill giving the camera (and the crowd!) 'the forks' was actually because he didnt know at the time that it meant something very different the to the lower classes than the 'v for victory' sign he meant. Typical aristocracy.

Old variant- put the fork up so your nose is poking though between your fingers.

The 'C' word you mean?

I actually think that its a beter term than the 'medically correct' word that is 'polite'. The c word is good old anglo-saxon, and stands on its own, the female anatony is not defined by comparison to the male anatomy or sex. The latin term defines that part of the female anatomy in a sexual way (it means 'sheath').

BTW, in 'polite' company its just as 'verborten' in the UK as it is in the US.

Sort of......there are insulting hand gestures that virtually any adult from any culture will get.

Hold your hand out flat, plam down, then point your middle finger toward the ground. Move your hand up and down. I've never seen anybody, from any culture, that didnt get that one. Yes, this will take some muscle control and dexterity, lots of people cant do it.

But you have a point. I find the stupid 'devils horns/corna' done by metalheads thse days hilarious. (AFAIK its current use dates back to copies of the 'satanic bible', some versions said that it was the 'satanic salute', and it was used that way a fair bit in the 1960s) It means 'cuckold/your wife is cheating on you' in mediterranean countries, and has for a very, very, _very_ long time.

He would have known exactly what it meant the other way round, and that's probably why he chose it! There's a reference to the obscene version in a novel by Dornford Yates, who went to the same school as Churchill.

I doubt it. It really doesnt make much sense for Churchill to be forking the crowd..and if it did make sense, why did he suddenly stop doing it?