In Defense of Miley Cyrus

At what point in time did it become acceptable to call someone that you don’t even know a slut, deplorable, skanky, etc.? Why do we (meaning a society) feel the need to brand someone with a scarlet letter? Oh how much sweeter it is when they fall from grace; when they were paradigms of purity and virtue. Miley Cyrus used to be the innocent Hannah Montana, and now she has become someone else—someone “edgy.” Surely she is not allowed to change, right? That would be silly, so it would seem. Almost every day it seems I read something along the lines of, “Miley (or celebrity X) is disgusting and is a terrible role model for little girls.” Maybe instead of demonizing Miley’s actions, parents should explain to their children why that kind of behavior is unacceptable.  Everyone should worry about their family and promote their values. Tiger Woods is another example of a recipient of such vitriol the likes of which is completely disproportionate to the crime (in my opinion). While his infidelity is upsetting and self-inflicted, it is his family he hurt (and to a lesser extent his sponsors). People wanted him to fail because many like to see someone once considered great get hurt. For a while, the media made it seem like he was the worst person in the world. He did break his contract with his wife to be forever faithful, and he should feel ashamed, but I believe the extent of the public outcry against him was unwarranted. We’ve been given a great freedom—the freedom of speech. We can use to it to say horrible things about celebrities, as that is totally within the boundaries of our freedom as Americans. I only wish we would not want to. What we as a society partake in everyday is no more than public bullying. When did that become ok?

Advertisements

One thought on “In Defense of Miley Cyrus

  1. Honestly, I agree with everything you said here. But, the fact of the matter is that this type of media gets attention, and gets money. A story about the right way to raise a family has no conflict, and because it has no conflict, the story will never be run. Stories like the ones involving Tiger and Miley though have that conflict ,and attract such a huge following as a result. Like I said, I do not agree with this type of media coverage at all. It polarizes individuals, forms a “hate cult” against individuals, and puts such a negative connotation on not a word, not a concept, but a person. It labels someone before you have even seen them, and destroys any credibility that person wishes to have in the future. Sounds horrific to me. But this is the same type of debate that was seen when Invitational Rhetoric was introduced. Being that a softer, more inviting diction should be used, but if I am the one who would benefit from a more manipulative rhetoric form, I might look at the situation a lot differently. It really is a matter of perspective, and because I am sitting in the UD library responding to you, I agree that this type of media is wrong. But, I promise you that if I were the CEO of the company that covered Miley’s story, I would be loving the fact that Miley’s life was ruined and the story went viral, because I would be filthy rich. So yes, I do agree with you that this type of media is outlandish, but that is the country we live in. If government isn’t any clue to how money can destroy the country, then this phrase should make it a bit clearer: In the United States, money talks and bullshit walks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s