The seduction of Hannah Montana
First Britney. Then Lindsay. And now: Miley Cyrus. Do they ever learn?
By “they,” I don’t mean the girls. I mean their parents. Where are they? What the hell are they thinking?
I don’t know how many times I’ve asked those questions over the years as a parade of young Hollywood starlets has burst onto the scene with wholesome charm, achieved dizzying fame and fortune, and then crashed back to Earth half-naked with corrupted souls and drug-glazed eyes.
Are parents without scruples more likely to sacrifice their daughters to the wolves of the entertainment industry? Or does show business sap all the common sense out of mothers and fathers who should know better? Either way, they are guilty of child abandonment.
Cyrus, for those of you without girls in the house, is the 15-year-old singer/actress with a runaway hit TV show (“Hannah Montana”), lucrative concert tour, and a Disney empire valued at nearly $1 billion. (Fortunately, my 7-year-old daughter is more fanatical about horses than cable pop stars.) The Mickey Mouse company is now in full meltdown mode over Cyrus’s latest photo shoot gone awry.
The photographer was famed celebrity snapper Annie Leibovitz. The magazine is Vanity Fair. Why those two names didn’t set off alarm bells the size of Texas for the Cyrus adults is beyond me. Leibovitz has a reputation for talking subjects into titillating poses under the guise of “art.” She put Demi Moore naked and pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair.
She also put rising glamour girls Keira Knightly and Scarlett Johansson on the magazine’s cover unclothed; Johansson’s back side was completely exposed. Another promising young actress, Rachel McAdams, had the dignity, class, and self-posession to refuse to appear in the photo spread. When she arrived on set and discovered what the editors were up to, she walked out and fired her representative.
So where were Miley’s parents during the photo shoot? Dad hung out for a while posing for some of the photos (which featured bare-midriffed Miley draped across his knee); Vanity Fair quickly posted some video footage of those scenes to somehow “prove” that Miley wasn’t manipulated:
But according to the NYPost, Billy Ray left the set before the controversial nude photo was taken–and somehow, Miley’s grandmother and teacher who were left to supervise her had no clue about what was going on, either:
Miley’s parents did leave the shoot and were not present for the final shot, nor did they see any digital images of the shot in question,” a Miley spokeswoman told The Post yesterday.
Her grandmother and her teacher were left to supervise, according to People magazine.
“Annie convinced them it was going to be artistic,” a source told People. “Her parents are mortified.”
According to the Vanity Fair article, Miley herself recognized she was being coaxed into the shot by a cunning Leibovitz:
And though the pose was Annie Leibovitz’s idea, the topless but demure portrait accompanying this article could be seen as another baby step, as it were, toward a more mature profile. “I think it’s really artsy,” Cyrus says. “It wasn’t in a skanky way.… And you can’t say no to Annie. She’s so cute. She gets this puppy-dog look and you’re like, O.K.”
Somebody should have been there to say no. And there were ample opportunities to intervene.
Like when Leibovitz coaxed the 15-year-old into taking her clothes off.
Or when she coaxed the teenager into getting made up with smoky eyes and ruby-stained lips.
Or when she gave the girl a silk blanket and mussed up her hair and told her to look over her shoulder and look like she had just awoken after a one-night stand.
The adults surrounding Miley Cyrus shamelessly abdicated their responsibility to protect her best interests. Mom and Dad got caught up in the Vanity Fair glam. Vanity Fair didn’t see a 15-year-old girl. They saw magazine sale dollar signs. And Annie Leibovitz saw skin, skin, skin and another notch in her belt.
The parents, grandmother, and teacher are not alone in shouldering blame. Shame on Liebovitz and the pretentious left-wing editor of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter.
“Artists” and “literary magazine editors?” Nonsense. They’re the elitist version of Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis and his video camera operators, coaxing girls to take it all off–just with more refined tones and high-minded pretentiousness.
***
Andrew Bolt lays into Graydon Carter: “Ah, yes, the poseur Carter, who pushes sleaze while preaching eco-salvation like some New Age prophet – a Gulfstream prophet in a Dior hairshirt, that is. Such a phoney. Save the environment, he bellows, while trashing the environment that actually matters most. Our moral one.”
Leibovitz used the trick dirty-old-men artists have employed to seduce vulnerable girls through the ages: she persuaded Miley that the pictures were “artistic”. But this is no celebration of young beauty. It is a blatant bedroom shot. Leibovitz saw the shock potential, the lip-smacking titillation, in posing a star known for her wholesome, girlish role in Disney’s Hannah Montana as if photographed by her deflowering first boyfriend.
What is more cynical is the decision by Vanity Fair’s supposed high-moralist Graydon Carter to publish the pictures. He saw their potential in selling his magazine’s special teen issue, since the chief excitement surrounding girl-women such as Cyrus concerns their entry on to the sexual marketplace. Years ago a website even ticked off the days and hours until the moment Britney Spears was “legal”.
It is the madness of Britney, and the drug problems and food disorders of Lindsay Lohan – both were also preteen Disney stars – that should prey upon the consciences of Leibovitz, Carter and Miley’s parents, who attended the shoot. Miley should be guided with care and respect into the adult stage of her career (if that’s what she wants), bypassing the money and headline-making phase of ravaged Lolita.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- 123beta
- Way to protect your pop-star meal ticket daughter Billy Ray! [Updated] at The Liberty Preservation Alliance
- Color Me Blah--Army of Dog
- Annie Leibovitz does it again | Mark's Soap Box
- Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog » Blog Archive » Miley Cyrus Exploited at Vanity Fair Photo Shoot - Takes Racy Photos
- The Other McCain: Jailbait double standards
- Oblogatory Anecdotes/Miley Cyrus Exploited
- Right Wing Nut House » SAY IT AIN’T SO, MILEY
- Jules Crittenden » From the Mouths of Babes
- Michelle Malkin: Slow down! « The Thinker
- Miley Cyrus’ Big Debacle » OpinionBug.com
- Michelle Malkin » R.I.P. Eddy Arnold
- Michelle Malkin » Beyonce’s new brand of pedophilia chic
- Webelf Report Blogroll « The WebElf Report
- Sega’s new items for the Wii | 1800blogger
- The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Disney’s New Jailbait Princess
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Hollyweird
Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas Special
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristPundit & Pundette
» How much did that "tent" cost?
If this was a publicity plot wouldn’t the parents have stayed for the racy pic? The fact that Miley was talked into the shot (article says so) only after her parents were gone implies premeditation on the part of the photographer. Since there had been a multitude of shots aready taken without anyone trying to disrobe Miley it’s reasonable to think the parents thought they could safely leave her behind to finish up. They were conned. As to the picture, it is somewhat racy not porn. Too racy for a 15 year old, especially one who is a role model for millions of 10 year olds but let’s not make more out of it than it is. Hopefully, this will be just a bump in the road for Miley and she will learn from it and continue to be the fine role model she has been so far.
Sorry, Dusty/Musty/Rusty, you’re not going to get away with the “DaVinci was gay” lie here.
I have a question for everyone who is saying that the picture is child pornography and that Liebovitz should be arrested.
Michelle has the picture on her website. If this was actual child pornography, Michelle would be arrested and thrown in jail for having it on here and charged with a variety of felonies.
Taking those facts into consideration, do you still think it’s child pornography and if so, why aren’t you angry with Michelle for posting it?
Wasn’t DaVinci considerd a womanizer?
If you read Wikipedia (I know, I know) it alludes that he was more than friendly with his two young male pupils. Which even if it was true would make him a pedophile.
But in the eyes of liberals, it is fact that he was (allegedly) gay (and a pedophile).
/yawn
I hope Mookie will allow me to speak on his behalf, but that’s not what he said at all. He is just pointing out an example of real child exploitation in comparison to the outrage many are generating over an exposed back.
Re Da Vinci: Gay gay gay.
Ok, there is no unanimous consensus or anything, but many researchers believe that Da Vinci was gay. He was charged with sodomy. He never had a wife or a female companion. He had many, many male companions. He certainly was not a womanizer.
Sorry for threadjacking.
This is the commodification of a 15-year-old girl’s sexual appeal, whether to sell magazines or advance someone’s career. Of course the picture is meant to be sexual. Why would Leibovitz conveniently wait until the parents were gone to talk Cyrus into posing for the picture?
It may not meet the legal definition of pornography but it is still part of the same continuum that exploits the sexual value of children, whether it’s little girls sold into sexual slavery in Thailand or thong underwear marketed to tweens or Brooke Shields being marketed as a sex kitten back in the day. Once the culture gets the go-ahead that this is okay, it’s open season on all children.
It’s hard to fight the mass culture. It offers us too much of what we want and there are plenty of people who will try and convince us that it’s all no big deal. But I will never buy an issue of Vanity Fair again. If we want this sort of thing to stop, we have to start walking the walk.
Many researchers believe matter came into existence out of nothing all on its own with no scientific proof or way to test it.
What’s your point?
I would label it soft-porn; and I’m not mad at MM because this is a news site, for all intents and purposes, and she is using the photo within the proper context of news analysis.
If a 58-year-old MAN were to take photos of a 15-year-old girl like this, Chris Hansen and a SWAT team would be paying him a visit in the name of protecting children. But since it’s a 58-year-old WOMAN taking photos of a 15-year-old celebrity, it’s A-OK. Any questions?
But that’s ridiculous. It’s still against the law to republish child porn regardless of the intent, whether it’s news or analysis or prevention.
Rusty, the Queen was displeased with Ms.Liebovitz’s photo.
Greenfaire, I remember Brooke Shields and “nothing comes between me and my Calvin’s” ad. It was quite shocking at the time.
Hahahahaha. Oh boy. You’re one of those. Even many ID proponents believe the Big Bang Theory since there is scientific evidence of it that has been observed. The universe is still expanding.
Do yourself a favor and read Hawking’s Brief History of Time.
And the reason ID gets no respect is because it has absolutely no scientific value. I’m a Christian who believes in evolution and therefore also believes in ID. But there’s no science behind it. Just religion.
And comparing Renaissance historians to physicists is an amazing example of futility. Maybe not as good of an example as me trying to show you that you’re wrong, but amazing nonetheless.
Like Terrig, I too remember the Calvin ads, and would classify this photo right along with those in the soft-but-not-explicit porn category, making it no more illegal for MM to republish Miley’s photo here than it was for the NYT to run those jeans ads, with a teenage Shields lying spread-eagle against a white back-drop, in the pages of their paper for all the world to see.
Plus, MM is not running the photo for salacious purposes.
But you can’t have it both ways. People can’t demand that the photographer be arrested for child porn while on a website that has the picture in question published.
Neither of my parents stayed at home with me; both have worked full-time jobs (and sometimes multiple jobs) since I was 4. I had school uniforms; most of the other girls insisted on rolling their skirts, and the ones with well-off families and stay-at-home parents were the ones who had the worst reputations.
Parents can (and should) keep their kids out of peer groups and away from advertising, music, websites, etc. that they don’t think is appropriate. It’s not enough to point and say “Society is the problem!” and not try to change it.
It may be impossible to change ALL society, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Plus, it’s not my job to parent everyone else’s children. When I have kids, I’ll set examples and standards and teach them enough so they can be independent and think critically about what society expects of them.
If by one of those you mean born-again Christians who believe the words:
Then yes I am one of those. For someone who calls yourself a Christian, I suggest you check out:
Ravi Zacharias
Way of the Master Radio
To just name a few.
Miley says her favorite show is Sex and the City?? Yikes.
On April 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm, Mookie said:
Miley says her favorite show is Sex and the City?? Yikes.
Oh, Wow. Now we reallly have to burn her at the stake. She also mentioned “I Love Lucy.”
The fact that her favorite show is Sex and the City makes her claims that she had no idea how the pictures were going to turn out even less believable than before. The ratings for Hannah Montana have been on a slow but steady decline. Combine that with the pictures of her in her underwear, draped across her boyfriend, and it’s pretty obvious Miley and her handlers are doing everything they can to shed her good girl image before it’s too late.
Miley never said she had “no idea” what she was doing. She’s not stupid. She merely stated the picture in context turned out different than she expected and that she was now embarrassed by it. She was clearly prodded into it after her parents left. Rosie O’Donnell (who I don’t usually quote) said she was photographed by Annie twice and that Annie was very intimidating and you basically do as you’re told. As to the ratings of “Hannah Montana” being in a slide, I don’t know what parallel universe you got that info from.
she apologized..so lets move on
What context did she think would be created by wearing a sheet and having tousled hair?
Montana’s Rapidly Falling Ratings
The context was different then she expected? LMAO. No, she means the reaction by her fans was different then what she expected and now she’s trying to do a little damage control.
Inasmuch as she issued her statement before the pictures were public, she could not have been reacting to fan reaction.
If you can stop laughing at my comments a few moments, take the time to learn the difference between “then and “than.”
Think rawhide.
I’ve seen many people on here today use the beach/swimming pool parallel to justify looking at a 15-year old girl half-naked. Frankly, I think there is far too much skin being shown at the pool, at the beach, and on the street, especially by teen (and younger) girls. Why are we so eager to see them grow up? Why do we rush their childhood to the point that bikinis are now acceptable? I have seen girls (here on Lake Washington) in suits that cover less skin than their underwear. When and why did we decide this was acceptable?
And before you reply with the “let’s just institute Sharia law” crap, let me just point out that when you let ideology go too far right or left, you end up with less freedom than you had before. If we allow young girls to dress provocatively, listen to trashy music, and encourage them to experiment and sleep around, you end up with a generation of people who care for nothing but the next hook-up, the next party, or the next shopping trip.
To those of you who find these pictures acceptable, even attractive, I pray my little sisters never meet you.
A Hannah Montana fan AND a grammar cop. Lord, help us!
Had to do it. Disproportional orthographic obsessions and all that.
Ah, you assume a Hannah fan because I am defensive of Miley. There’s another reason. Liberals simply cannot stand having a wholesome, Christian role model for the kids so they are attempting to tear her down for a youthful indescretion. They are trying to make her out to be a slut because that’s what they want her to be. I hope she disappoints you.
I love Rusty saying he has a thick skin. Whenever he is confronted with uncomfortable facts he resorts to name calling. He is much like Morford who has to say something regardless of whether he has anything worthwhile to say.
I still don’t see why this is such a big deal, considering after oh, halfway through May and until September (and in some areas, year-round), there’s 15 yr old girls running around with more skin showing than in that picture basically everywhere in the USA.
Stating that this is much ado over nothing is completely different than attempting to ‘tear Miley down’. . .but then I’m not a liberal, so maybe #225 wasn’t meant to apply to me.
No it wasn’t. I was referring to those who are analyzing every outfit she ever wore, every picture of her and what TV shows she likes trying to find evidence she’s a “bad girl.”
I think it’s just sad and pathetic that even parents can’t control their kids. They give in, give them stuff, let them wear “tarty” clothes. I often saw this as a teacher. When I was in group planning sessions with other teachers on the bloc, we’d mention this. We were from all political viewpoints and could agree on one thing… kids should be kids, not kids acting like adults.
Many adults have failed kids in this country. The culture gives them mixed messages of how to be and what to wear to “fit in.” Kids can no longer be themselves. They have to grow up immediately so that they act out what their “adult” role models Paris, Britney, Lindsey would do.
Many people will say that this is an overreaction to Miley’s unclothed look. I’m sure though, that parents trying to preserve whatever remaining vestiges of innocence left in their kids’ childhoods, would disagree with such a viewpoint.
That is one crazy conspiracy. No one forced her to do anything. She is trying to go from Dinsey celebrity to celebrity cel3ebrity. That is all.
Your “facts” were torn apart by plenty of people on both the Left and Right last time we went at it, publius. I’m sorry you’ve brainwashed by some sort of hate cult.
A wholesome, Christian role model, huh?
Real
Wholesome.
No conspiracy required. Liberals by instinct look for hypocrisy in every conservative. Since conservatives aren’t perfect, it can often be found. How the rule applies in this instance is simple. Since Miley Cyrus is a human being, she will occasionally do something “Hannah Montana” wouldn’t. Those that instinctively hate an image like “Hannah” will then seize upon the occasion to attempt to establish hypocrisy and negate the image entirely. If Miley proves herself unfit as someone we allow our children to admire we can deal with it then. In the meantime we should not let those who might not have our best interests at heart to convince us she has already crossed that threshold when she has not.
Uh, are you sure the people who convinced you that she HASN’T crossed whatever threshold you’re referring to have your best interests at heart? I mean, it’s pretty plain that this picture pales by comparison with some other readily available photos of her taken at public appearances.
She’s certainly not trying very hard to push an image of propriety and innocence.
I’m pretty conservative and even old-fashioned but I accepted the existence of things like miniskirts way back in the 1960’s. The Vanity Fair photo was designed (manipulated) to be somewhat suggestive but Miley’s fashions are normal, even conservative, for a girl her age. At least going by what I’ve seen.
If I was publishing a book or a news article, I might take more time to ensure the grammatical correctness of my comments. This is a blog site on the internet. It’s really not that serious, and it really wasn’t that big of a mistake. You got the gist of what I was saying. I guess you were just going for a cheap insult.
How do you figure that? Her statement was not the first time people heard about the photo shoot. People already knew about it from various news outlets and internet sites. Fans were up in arms about it as the controversy had already begun. It was definitely a reaction to the backlash.
Hey you were LMAO at my post. I’m pretty new here and just getting to know who’s who. I’m beginning to suspect that arguing with Mookie falls into the category of “feeding the trolls.” Maybe I should stop.
I even got my Mookies and McGustos mixed up.
valleygreaser -
You should definitely not give Mookie any more attention than necessary. He thrives on negativity (several others do, too, sadly) and loves to argue, in my limited experience.
Thanks for the advice. I think this whole subject has been adequately argued anyway. Let’s just agree the best role model for young girls is Michelle Malkin!
I can’t disagree with your last statement.
Rusty: Contrary to your protestations, my facts were not torn apart. They were demeaned and derided as some type of Christian plot, but they were never refuted. Also, a number of objective individuals actually did look at the facts and sources – and came to the conclusion that there was some merit in them.
She. She thrives on negativity. And if thinking that Miley Cyrus and her parents aren’t innocent victims in this debacle means I thrive on negativity, I have no problem with that.
Miley (with help from her dad) has sent Vanity Fair a plea not to publish her photo shoot. I have managed to obtain a copy. It goes like this …
Don’t show my back
My naked, naked back
I just don’t think you understand
That if you show my back
My naked, naked back
It might cause me to lose a fan
Now you can show my toes
Show me in my hose
Show me in my jammies if you can
But if you show my back
My naked, naked back
It’s something the law just oughta ban
Don’t show my back
My naked, naked back
The fans will never you understand
And if you show my back
My naked, naked back
It might be a flash in the pan
The failure has been over the last several years, where Miss Cyrus’ parents have failed to teach her that when anyone asks you to remove your clothing, the answer is a firm, “No!”
Only appropriate medical personnel and her husband has the right to hear any other answer.
supposed to be “will never understand”
As pointed out above, the picture isn’t attractive in any aesthetic sense; nor is it sexually attractive to a normal person. So, I pose to the forum: are those responsible for the picture nihilistic-evil or pedophile-evil?
I wonder if the photographer, editor, & everyone else in the food chain that put this picture out reveled more in the destruction of wholesomeness and purity that they accomplished, or are they straight up pedophiles? Were they simply motivated by their life-hating degenerate values and seeking to destroy good, or were they motivated by some sick, pseudo-sexual perversion?
Neither.
Destruction of wholesomeness/purity? She shows more skin at public appeareances. Relax. Can you BE any more melodramatic? If they were pedophiles, they’d be furtively watching the 15 yr olds in two-piece bathing suits at the public pool in ANY TOWN ACROSS THE ENTIRE NATION.
Maybe I’ll try melodrama and sarcasm:
Poor little celebrity posed for a picture showing nothing but her back. How could she EVER have imagined a picture of her back would get published? How utterly humiliating!
For pete’s sake people the reclining poses in the video are far more “titillating” than the picture of her that people are taking issue with. They’re far more sexually provocative.