p2pnet - rss feed: New Miley Cyrus ‘racy pix’ scandal
p2pnet news | TV:- A new batch of ‘racy’ pix of Miley Cyrus has everyone in an uproar.
Everyone except Disney, that is, which is cashing in on the same kind of priceless free PR from her as it did from the Vanessa Hudgens ‘nude’ saga.
And Vanity Fair.
Hudgens was only 16 when she allowed a boyfriend to snap her, the photographs later appearing online.
Cyrus is 15 and not only did her mum and dad allow her Vanity Fart to spread her across their pages, they also included a shot of her draped across her country music star father.
“Disney - which is no doubt concerned about the sexy new image Miley is projecting - quickly leapt to her defense, blaming Vanity Fair for manipulating their $1 billion cash cow,” says the Boston Herald.
“Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines,” it has Disney spokeswoman Patti McTeague ssying.
But, “A Vanity Fair rep fired back that Miley’s parents - her country singer dad, Billy Ray Cyrus, and mom, Tish - and other minders were on the set all day.”
And the media have a golden opportunity to wax indignant.
“Shame on you Annie Leibovitz, Carter - and Miley Cyrus’s parents,” says Britain’s Times Online, going on, “It is inconceivable that Annie Leibovitz was taken aback by the outraged response to her shoot of a half-naked, smudge-lipsticked, knowing-eyed 15-year-old” … yadayada
“Semi-topless Miley: A billion bucks worth of ‘bad’,” says Canada’s Vancouver Sun. “Tween phenom Miley Cyrus, the squeaky-clean Hannah Montana of cable TV, the singing moppet blazing the latest Disney-propelled sugar-coated trail of stardom” … blah blah
Actually, Vancouver Sun, she isn’t a tween. She’s a teen.
Anyhow, “Revealing Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise,” reckons the New York Times. Not even nearly.
She is, however, apparently contrite.
“Spin doctors for squeaky-clean tween Miley Cyrus kicked into action yesterday, blaming Vanity Fair’s famed photog, Annie Leibovitz, for ‘tricking’ 15-year-old “Hannah Montana” into a sexy, provocative pose,” says the Boston Herald story, going on:
“The fresh-faced Disney Channel star released a statement over the weekend saying she was ‘embarrassed’ by the VF photo showing her clutching a satin sheet to her chest, her bare back exposed.
“I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic’ and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed,” said the “churchgoing Cyrus,” according to the story.
“I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care deeply about.”
Like we said yesterday, it’s tough at the top.
.
.Stumble It!
‘racy’ pix - Miley Cyrus naked (almost), April 29, 2008
Vanity Fair - Tween Angel, April, 2008
Boston Herald - Lindsay Lohen as Marilyn: naked online, February 18, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Is this not child porn? So what is the police doing?
April 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am
No it’s not child porn. Thankfully the police is doing nothing.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Kinda depends on what you call obscene, doesn’t it?
Cheers!
April 29th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
So it showed her bare back. So what? Evening gowns do the same. You see more than that whenever you walk down the street. Granted, if you happen to look, you will be branded a pedophile if it’s a teenager. But why do they dress that way if they don’t want to arouse attention and immoral desire? They do, they don’t; depends on the mood, who is looking etc etc
April 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I can’t help but wonder what the term
“semi-topless”
is supposed to mean. Either you are topless or you are not.
!– rant start
While I do not agree with the parading of minors as sexual object, I do have a problem with perverted nuts telling other people what is and what isn’t decent for use to see (cue story about the old lady gang who went around clothing statues and spray painting world famous art, because they thought that they should be clothed).
Living overseas, it’s very interesting to see how people can read obscenity into anything, trying to give any bit a flesh a direct link to sexuality.
In many cultures, where public bathing of both men and women were common and public breast feeding was not considered lewd(this recent concept in the US baffles the mind to no extent), there were less cases of rape, then when the western ideas of decency were forced into the culture.
I’ve even met pet owners who consider it obscene for their dogs to not wear clothes.
Sure there is a time and a place for everything, but just because it “looks like she may be topless” does not mean that she is appearing topless, and as a personal opinion, if “appearing” to be topless or not wearing any underwear is indecent, then that person really needs to see someone about their sexual frustrations.
!– rant end
Just my two cents
April 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“Is this not child porn?”
That depends. The photo taken by itself doesn’t qualify as child porn. It wouldn’t technically qualify even if she were completely naked and being shown full frontal. Don’t believe me? Go rent Pretty Baby with Brooke Shields. Or check out some books by David Hamilton.
Of course, if the FBI even THINKS that you might be turned on by looking at such a photo, it instantly becomes child pornography and they will stop at nothing to put you in jail for the rest of your life. Don’t believe me? There are documented cases of them filing charges against people for having photos of adult performer Melissa Ashley, who looks underage. The FBI knows how old she is, but they claim that the suspects thought they were looking at child porn, so they should be put in prison regardless of the legality of the photos. Do a Google search if you don’t believe me.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Oops, forgot what I wanted to say about the post;
The only reason she’s apologizing and saying that she was coerced into doing it is that people disapprove, so she wants to look innocent of any blame. Considering the photos she’s taken herself and posted to the net, I doubt she’s the least bit embarassed by the VF picture. She’s just playing the part of a good little cash cow.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
io penso che miley è la migiore
I think miley is the best
is more beatiful
May 1st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Miley cyrus can go to hell.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:01 am
I think Miley is the best i love her so much and i think she don’t have to apologize from pple i think we have to apologive for her we have to live her do what ever she want and whenever she want cuz she’s just a kid and whenever she looks to the blue sky she see the paparazzi flowing her everywhere isn’t that a punition??????
go miley cyrus i luv u mile and be sure whatever u did i’ll be supporting ya cuz i really care about ya and i do believe ya so don’t care about what pple say just do whatever u want and the person who really love u will believe ya other wise then he’s not a good fan !! and be sure whatever u did i’ll be supporting ya becuz i know u’ll never gonna do something bad for ur fans