Now suppose you show two groups of people the same footage of from the Super Bowl. If you just call it a plant, even less so. If you just call it a flower, they’ll like it, but maybe not as much. If you call it a rose, they’ll probably like it. There's quite a bit of evidence that if you blindfold people and ask them to smell an aroma, what you call that aroma has a big effect on how pleasant they find it. But interestingly enough Shakespeare was wrong. If he were correct, anyone who witnessed that Super Bowl moment should realize it was something Timberlake was responsible for, no matter how it's described. Shakespeare said that a rose smells as sweet, no matter what one calls it. Even if that wasn’t his intention, it's clear he did it. They saw Timberlake reach across Jackson’s blouse, unclip something, her blouse fall open, and her exposed breast. Presumably he thought that made him sound less culpable. He described the same event, but without a person to hold responsible for opening the blouse. He said that as he reached across her blouse, "a wardrobe malfunction occurred”. That’s not the way Timberlake described it, however. I’m describing an action for which Timberlake might be held responsible, and with him CBS, for exposing the young, innocent Super Bowl watchers of the world to a naked breast. For example, in reporting a famous event witnessed by millions of people on TV, I might say "Justin Timberlake ripped off Janet Jackson’s blouse, revealing her naked – uh - chest." Well, actually, her right breast, not to be overly euphemistic.
By the language of responsibility, we mean the way we report events for which someone might be held responsible - events for which someone might be blamed, or praised.