Forgive the twisted journalist part of me that has been trained to consider all sorts of angles to a story.

I clicked on to Eonline (just to check the poll, I swear!) and I see Ted Casablanca repeat something I'd wondered earlier this week:

If the Janet imbroglio was deliberate, was it something she planned as a diversion from all the Michael Jackson weirdness? While the MJ case's coverage has continued, it's been overshadowed by general hubbub and consternation, the spectre of a JJ ban from the Grammies, the promise of an FCC investigation and a blizzard of media coverage (everything from CBS affiliates' muted blurbs to tabloid shows' obsession with it).

And, Janet, while playing the wide-eyed apologist, has fed those media outlets with progressive statements throughout the week. Even Jermaine Dupri resigned as president of the Atlanta chapter of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences.

Suddenly, stories about Michael Jackson's "Jesus Juice" took a backseat. In a week where news reports have talked about things found in the police raid on MJ's property, the impact is dulled -- lost, even -- in the avalanche of torn leather and silk, and the glare of metal (I've been reading WAAAY too much Walter Mosely...)

Did JJ know that a rough week awaited MJ? Did she act out of some sisterly concern? Did Joseph tell her to do it?

Wow. What amazes me is that that is a possibility! It's a crazy world we live in.

i thought of this also but judging from her reaction to the allegations 10 years ago, i would say it is coincidence. she was very adamant about keeping her private life just that. janet is smart enough to keep business and personal life separate.

i know i'm gonna get slammed but i really do think it went further than she intended. i believe her breast was supposed to remain covered. janet's always been a tease but she knows the titilation (no pun intended) comes from not showing everything.

Threadbare, I thought that might be a possibility as well...

SassierBritches said:

Agreed. Janet's not stupid. I don't know if the full reveal was what she intended, but she's certainly not doing this for Michael.

and did this hurt or help MJ's situation. that's some gangsta shit if she did it for him.. straight up gangsta.

marcdeondotcom said:

marcdeondotcom, did you see janet's face and her expressions during the velvet rope tour? i saw that and i KNEW she was gangsta right then and there!

VoicesCarry said:

I think she's stupid for not rehearsing the "reveal".

VinaBlue said:

i feel so bad for her. i just can't believe it went wrong...i mean, why didn't BOTH boobs pop out as planned?!

marcdeondotcom said:

gangsta...


Hmmm... The GodFather callin in on some favors.

ElectricPurple said:

Joe made her an offer, EP?

SassierBritches said:

I've been hearing about the whole situation only through here. I don't have cable and I don't listen to the radio, so my opinion isn't very informed. However, the way she gave her first apology (I'm sorry it offended/that wasn't my intention) leads me to believe she did what she set out to do and didn't expect such a negative reaction. That first apology/statement could read that her intention wasn't to offend, not that she didn't mean to show her boob.

I agree...it just wasn't her intention to offend.

SassierBritches said:

too funy. boobs are on tv commercials in europe so what's the big deal already.. take it all off.
justin got punk'd

I've heard this considered, along with the idea that she didn't want to be upstaged by Beyonce; and that Justin wanted to one up Britney ("the kiss").

SassierBritches said:

Kelly Osborne wondered the same thing.

Personally, I believe the stunt went as planned. I mean we all saw the photo. The cup was clearly removable--there were snaps! And again, where's the shock value in seeing just a lacy red bra? You can pick up the Victoria's Secret catalog and see that page after page.

Janet just did not mean to offend anyone is all.