Shame on Reuters and Shame on Miley

I don't spend much time worrying about celebrities.  I don't read TMZ or Perez Hilton.  I have a low opinion of most celebrities, but there are a few exceptions.  There are some who believe their opinions matter more than most just because they are famous (like Sean Penn), but I rather miss the old days when celebrities kept their private lives, and body parts, to themselves.

We live in such a voyeuristic society today.  What are the rules when celebrities are actually children?  Is is just open season on them because they have put themselves (or someone else has...) put them in the spotlight?

Last week Perez Hilton came under fire for publishing the "upskirt" photo of Miley Cyrus climbing out of a convertible without proper undergarments.  Was he wrong to publish the picture?  Morally, yes.  Legally, the issue is that she's a minor and therefore it could be considered child porn.

But, what can you expect from Perez Hilton, anyway?  That's no excuse, but still...

Now we have Reuters, a normally respected news agency, publishing the latest wardrobe malfunction of Miley Cyrus at the MuchMusic Video Awards last night.  I'm not going to even link to it because it's disgusting.  Reuters defends the publication of the photo saying " it occurred on stage in front of hundreds of people and other cameras, as well as the fact that the teen sensation is transitioning away from 'Hannah Montana' and into a more grown-up performer."  Not good enough.  She's not "grown-up" - she's seventeen.

Where do we, as a society, draw the line when it comes to children in show business?  We've seen the absolute meltdown of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan occur right before our eyes.  Have Miley's handlers or parents learned nothing from this?  This is a dangerous road.

There are many young girls who hear Miley Cyrus and think "Hannah Montana!"  Does she have an obligation to set an example for them?  Does Miley have an obligation to herself to maintain some class and dignity?

I'm rather at a loss for words on this one.  Normally, I'd say, "She's a celebrity, practically an adult...if she wants to go down that road, fine."  But, she's still a child.  She's seventeen.

It's just sad.

It's sad that anyone, ANYONE, let her go out on that stage "dressed" like ... well, like that, last night.  Her performance last night, on top of the Perez Hilton scandal last week signals a dangerous road for Miley, to me.  Her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, caught a lot of flak over the Vanity Fair shoot two years ago (when she was fifteen), and apparently learned little from it, or just doesn't think it's a big deal.  At the time, I thought the photos were kind of creepy, but I let it go.  In retrospect, maybe we should have paid more attention. 

I hate to see a promising, formerly wholesome, young girl go the same route as Britney and Lindsay.  I'm not a prude or Victorian by any means, but .... she's seventeen.  Honestly, it wouldn't be much better if she was 21, but ... she's seventeen.

Shame on Reuters for publishing such rot.  Shame on her parents and shame on her.

Sad.


(H/T:  The Other McCain)

On Polls and Information Sources

I think this poll is rather frightening:

"Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea. "

It astounds me how uninformed so many people are. I don't say that trying to fluff my own feathers, because while I know every single day that I have a lot to learn, I do make an effort to stay informed.

Many people just don't care about politics and would rather leave it to the people in Washington they've elected. Many people find politics boring. Many people have lousy hometown newspapers. Not everybody stays tuned in to a news channel. Whatever excuse - the fact remains that this poll is quite likely very true. Many people don't know what cap and trade is. Or what socialism is. Or who the vice-president is.

I used to think those "man on the street" interviews were just set up, but now I don't think so. You'd get some radio person or tv person to go out and find the lowest schmuck in the shallowest gene pool and start asking him to name the members of the Supreme Court or even how many members there are, and the guy is all ... " Uh.... dude, wasn't that Diana Ross?"

Even on a local scale this sad fact exists. There are LARGE numbers of people in Louisiana that don't realize that their taxpayer dollars in the budget each year go to fund things like the Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association in (any city), or the Purple Circle Social Club in New Orleans (they needed a tree removed from their property). We have a sorry newspaper in Shreveport - just the facts. It's a TERRIBLE newspaper. And they don't report these things.

My mother just canceled her Sunday paper, by the way, because it's 80% sales circulars, 15% ads, and 5% frivolous articles that have been recycled from other newspapers.

The point is that I suspect this Rasmussen poll is pretty accurate. And that scares me to death because if we don't stay informed and involved in the political process, if we just "leave it to the people we elected" then we'll wake up one day wondering what the heck happened to our country. I'm already wondering that, but that's beside the point.

You don't have to be an activist to be interested in what's going on. You have avenues of information. My mother, for example, quit the Sunday paper but still takes two other papers and watches cable news (two different channels). She's in no way a news junkie or an activist. But she likes to know what's going on.

When I hear things like the Rasmussen poll referenced above, it makes me realize the value of blogs, newspapers, internet, and other periodicals that people can use to stay informed.

We have spirited discussions in the comments on this blog, sometimes, and sometimes people are nasty and insulting, but hopefully, the process serves to inform. And ultimately that's better than not knowing, most of the time, anyway.

Mrs. Astor Regrets

This book is currently on my reading list. I don't usually read "tabloid" or gossipy stuff much, but this story has intrigued me from day one. I was reading about this case in the papers as it was unfolding (and it is not yet resolved) before Mrs. Astor passed away, and all I could think about was how sad and sordid it all was and how this lovely woman would have hated it so much. USA Today wrote about the book and its author yesterday.

If you're unfamiliar with the story, the short version is that the grandson files suit against his own father for improper care (elder abuse) of the patriarch Mrs. Astor leading to Annette de la Renta being appointed guardian. Mrs. de la Renta took over management of Mrs. Astor's last days, seeing to it that she spent them in the company of her friends and her beloved dogs, and at the estate she so loved rather than in the city. Now that Mrs. Astor has died it boils down to a nasty case of fraud, money, and family infighting. Nasty buisness.

Can't wait to read it!

Celebrity Worship

I have a lot of friends who are more tuned into celebrity-worship than I am so I am appealing to you for an answer. In this article we have the lovely Annette Bening coming down on Palin. That's fine - that's her right. I don't care. What just GETS me is why celebrities think they are more relevant than anyone else when it comes to politics just because they are famous?

Back in the "golden era" of Hollywood, when you were under contract to a studio, you did NOT discuss your politics in public and your dirty laundry personal life was also private. Actually, your private life was pretty much managed and manufactured by the studio. Times are different, celebs own their own studios and can do what they want.

I do NOT deny their right to express their opinion. Of course they can, just as I can. It's just when they get all preachy that gets under my skin. Johnny Depp comes to mind. I used to really like Johnny Depp's movies, but he got all "I hate America and I can't stand to come to America I'm going to stay in Europe until we have politicians in power that I can stand" on everybody. Gwynneth? You hate America? Fine. Stay in Europe. Shut up already.

It's not just politics. I mean I loved Tom Cruise. But he lost me long before he jumped on The Oprah's couch. Now I can't even stand to look at him. I mean, the way he tried to shut down SouthPark because he didn't like their Scientology episode....good grief. Get a grip.

There's a point when we know too much about celebrities. There is a point where it begins to damage their careers. I mean, Tom Hanks? John Travolta? They are just as political or Scientologized as others but they keep it to themselves for the most part. And I love their work. I do not care if LiLo and Sam Ronson are holding hands. Their business. I do not care if Britney is wearing underwear for crying out loud. But folks like Cruise and Depp and Gwynnie - I can't separate their work from their opinions anymore.

Do I just not GET the whole celeb thing?