Did Hannah Jump or Was She Pushed?

She jumped. Likely she was not at that photo shoot alone - one thing for a 15-year-old anybody to not make an appropriate decision like this- but she is a 15-year-old somebody w/"people" accompanying her - shame on them all if they blame this on anyone but themselves for just not saying "no" during the photoshoot (if they truly had a problem with the pose, that is).

Yes, the real question is when her "jump" from the Disney castle into the real world of stardom will occur. At some point she has got to choose - live one life or the other. With the level of popularity, $$ and fame she has achieved so quickly, that protective Disney skin will likely be shed at some not-to-far-in-the distant time.

No matter what, Miley is still a fifteen-yo girl trying to find her true identity. It isn't really fair for parents to hold her to the same standard they hold for their 8-yo daughters that look up to her. What if you tried to get your high-school-age daughter not to do anything that you wouldn't want your fourth-grader to do because your fourth-grader looks up to your high-schooler? She can't be a little girl forever. Good for her for trying to expand a little.

@lulu lulu - echo that. Very well said.

James Poniewozik,
Are you kidding me? SHE'S 15!!! Whether she jumped with eyes wide open or was 'pushed' matters absolutely NONE AT ALL! The adults at this photo shoot behaved unconscionably. My question for Annie Leibovitz is this, 'At what point during this photo shoot did it seem like a good idea to ask a 15 YEAR OLD girl to remove her top?' Whether she agreed or not matters not, because to consider Miley's attitude about the whole shoot, one would first have to get past the fact that there were several adults standing around who thought it was a good idea to strip her down and do a provocative photo. You can try to call it an attempt at artistic expression all you want, but I saw the photo, and it's pure 'sexy magazine cover' material. You should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Poniewozik, for even writing such an article, and speaking as if she is an adult on the same level as those around her that day. A child her age should be able to make SOME of her own decisions but certainly not all of them. There's a reason that children aren't emancipated from there parents legally until they're 18. Because they do not yet have the wisdom to make good decisions. Did she 'jump' or was she 'pushed'? Doesn't matter, you JUST DON'T ask a 15 year old to remove her top unless she's changing her clothes.

What no one is mentioning, is that her "people" on set were her PARENTS! That should shut everyone up, right? Her parents were there, and were okay with the shots, and were even IN some of the shots!

But now, alas, the lahlahpos of the world will be trying to get Child & Family Services against Mr. & Mrs. Achy Breaky instead...

She jumped with Mommy and Daddy standing right beside her. Manager, mommy gets her cut and daddy gets whatever he gets! More money in the Cyrus coffers.

BRAVO LAHLAHPO!! You have it exactly right.

Does anyone at Time Magazine have a daughter? I think the next question after this one is obvious. At least let's hope so.

It would have been nice if Mr. Poniewozik actually asked and answered the most important question, with the understanding that it is not always about money. Maybe...just maybe, he and TIME will get it right the next time.

I have three daughters and I have no problem agreeing with what's being said in this article. Miley Cyrus is not your typical teenage girl, no matter what her publicity machine tries to spit out. She was raised in a family of people in the business. To think that this photo wasn't in some way planned or agreed to is just plain naive. This is the same girl who prances around on stage in skin tight black catsuits and writhes around as she sings, posts shots of herself on her myspace in bikinis and flashing her bra and her "handlers" aka HER PARENTS do nothing to stop it. I'm absolutely sick and tired of peoples desperation to hold up these Disney stars to some pedestal of virtue for their daughters to look up to. How about actually telling them that there are actual people to look up to that aren't on the boob tube or movie screen? Or would that actually be asking parents to do their job and not be their kid's best friend?

Bravo Alecto.

@jmkOrlando- do you have a son? Family? The questions raised here are not gender specific - good/bad judgement applies all around the clock. As a parent of both genders, it would be my wish to think of them equally on these grounds....

I didn't think there was any problem with this article either - there is nothing wrong with pointing out the reality that media-savvy celebrities and handlers do a lot of staging and posturing to maximize exposure and control messages. Combine that with the fact that she and her handlers didn't express any problems with the pics BEFORE they were released, and that the pics were still PG-rated, and I don't really see why anyone is up in arms. I have no interest in playing parent to a very clever young celebrity, she's got her own parents to help her navigate the murky waters from young celebrity to young adult celebrity. She's got to keep current fans happy while expanding her appeal, etc. She comes out ahead no matter how you slice this one, from where I sit, so I'm not going to get all indignant about this.

This puts me in mind of a similar thing recently with Zac Efron on the cover of Rolling Stone with no shirt - trying to shed his good-boy image while also having to worry about alienating current fans (and their parents). He's a little older, which does change things a little, but he's also a dude, which changes things a lot, in that I imagine that it would be way easier for people to argue that a female had been taken advantage of than it would be for them to argue that a dude had been taken advantage of. Not that he was trying to argue any such thing, just that it seemed more OK for him to step out of the wholesome zone. Ugh, I've got a point about double standards, but I can't figure out how to make it clearly. . .

Bottom line, whether it is good or bad (bad, I think), our pop culture scene is highly sexualized. And young artists/performers are operating in a pop culture world that does not really reward "wholesome-ness" from adults. And young celebrities and their handlers, as they grow up and their "image" evolves, do have to pay attention to the reality of their profession if they want to succeed. It would suck to be a sweet, naive country girl trying to travel those shark-infested waters alone; however, Miley Cyrus is NOT that girl - she's got training, experience, and people around her helping to mold her career and build her image. End of issue for me.

You know, it's not like they've never seen Annie Leibowitz's work before. They know her style and it's considered an honor to work with her (not to mention the kind of pictures that are published in Vanity Fair). I really think it's a beautiful, mature photo of a young woman. Besides, BRC is known for being a protective parent and it's unlikely anyone was made uncomfortable for the photo to be taken.

"[Zac Efron is] a little older, which does change things a little, but he's also a dude, which changes things a lot, in that I imagine that it would be way easier for people to argue that a female had been taken advantage of than it would be for them to argue that a dude had been taken advantage of. Not that he was trying to argue any such thing, just that it seemed more OK for him to step out of the wholesome zone. Ugh, I've got a point about double standards, but I can't figure out how to make it clearly...."

I think I see what you're getting at--or at least I know the double standard that *I* see. People don't fret in the same way about _boys_ being sexual/sexualized too early, even though that should be an issue too. A teen guy made to be sexy is not seen as being a victim, just as a teen guy who sleeps with his adult teacher (if that teacher is female) is not seen as being a victim in the way that a teen girl who sleeps with an adult (male) teacher is, etc., etc. In other words, a teenage girl who is sexualized is likely to be seen as wronged; a boy, as lucky.

I know it's too simple to draw a flat-out equivalence between boys and girls, but it's definitely a double standard nonetheless. Where are the breathless media stories on "Hollywood's Out of Control Guys" and the examples they set for our impressionable sons?

@James - thank you! Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say. This must be why you get paid the big bucks ;)

If you go back and read LAHLAHPO's comments (especially the very last line). They are not hostile or condemning. They were just pointing out common sense: "...you JUST DON'T ask a 15 year old to remove her top...".

As I go back and read the comments from LAHLAHPO, Alecto, you (Lori), and myself, I see the same common sense mentioned above being applied by all of us.

Lori, you are exactly right, the questions are not gender specific, but yet they were still missed by Mr. Poniewozik and the editors at Time. To HELP bring the question into focus a little better, I hinted at the question: "WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU ASK, OR ALLOW, YOUR 15 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER TO TAKE OFFER HERE TOP FOR THE COVER OF A MAGAZINE THAT IS AIMED AT ADULTS?". Sorry you missed that. There was no gender bias intended.

And yes, Lori, I have two sons, one daughter, a wife of almost 17 years, a dog, etc... Even before I had all these, I still had that common sense mentioned above and think most people do, as well. I'm not sure how Mr. Poniewozik or Time missed it.

p.s. hostility tends to cloud the thought process and breakdown the dialog

As an artist and a photographer I have to say that Annie's pictures are beautiful. They are elegant and natural and Miley looks very lovely.

That being said, I'm not a parent and therefore I cannot say what my thoughts would be if I were to have a child that looked up to her. I would like to think that I would be able to take a step back, breathe and then explain to my child the difference between an artistic nude and running around stark naked and showing the entire world your hoohaas.

Actually Buf,
Her 'PARENTS', as you say, were there, now listen carefully, for most of the day but left before the photo in question was shot. How interesting that this famed photographer 'artist' had Miley in front of her camera most of the day but waited until AFTER her parents left to 'spontaneously' come up with the idea that she remove her top. Do you think for ONE SECOND that if her parents had heard the words 'remove your top' that this photo shoot would'nt have been stopped faster than a train wreck? Annie Leibovitz knew it would have, which I'm sure is why she waited, even though she would have us believe that the timing of the incident was mere coincidence. And for those of you who talk about how lovely Annie Leibovitz's photos are, well, I agree, they usually are, but no matter how famous or artistic a photographer has become, no matter how she thinks the photo should be 'interpreted', it is NEVER okay to ask a minor to remove her top.

@jmkOrlando: Who exactly are you saying has been hostile?

@Lahlahpo: What about asking a minor to remove his top?

To Shara says,
Just for the record, no, it would NOT be appropriate to ask a minor male to remove his top in front of the camera either. I merely used the pronoun 'her' because the subject in question (Miley Cyrus) is female. A boy taking his shirt off on a hot day or while playing sports is one thing. In front of the camera for a magazine is entirely another. I have a 16 year old nephew and if it were him, I wouldn't want him being sexualized by going topless in nationally distributed photos. And that's the bottom line, too. You can call it artistic or slap any number of 'big' words on it, but the top was removed to sexualize the girl and that's what people find so unacceptable about this.

ms. leibowitz said she is sorry the photos "have been misinterpreted." does anyone else think that's a strange statement? don't we all decide what it is or means according to our values or biases or eye or whatever (measurable artistic merit aside)? whether it's beautiful or creepy, the pic doesn't present me with a big problem as the parent of a nine year old who adores Hannah/Miley. If she happens to hear about it or see it, we'll discuss it. We had to do that when, channel-surfing, she landed on a commercial for Girls Gone Wild. I'd rather discuss with a nine-year-old a Leibowitz photo of a semi-nude teen idol than the videotaped beer bongs and g-strings of spring break in Ft. Lauderdale, any day.
i don't know if Miley and/or her parents/handlers meant to transition her image or just wanted to accept an offer from a big name publication. Disney kind of annoys me though in that they set these kids up with all this money and glamour and then act all indignant when the kids grow up too fast. Yes it's up to the parent to oversee it, but why should Disney start blaming Vanity Fair for getting what they can out of a person?

"...Yes it's up to the parent to oversee it, but why should Disney start blaming Vanity Fair for getting what they can out of a person?"

Because tg,
That 'person' is a 15 year old child. For a child to have a career is bad enough, but for Vanity Fair or Annie Leibovitz or anyone else to jump on the bandwagon and try to 'get what they can out of her' is not okay. I had a singing career as a child. From the time I was 10 to 16 years old. My dad was wrong to enter me into this world while still too young to truly and legally decide for myself. But the fact that he 'put me out there' wouldn't have made it alright for the Annie Leibovitz's and Vanity Fairs of the world to try and get a piece. It's all disgusting. Jamie Lee Curtis has gone on the record to say that the adults that were there should have protected Miley. She also said she doesn't think Annie Leibovitz duped her and that Annie has integrity. Bah! Annie Leibovitz WAS one of the adults there. She should have been looking out for the best interest of any child in her presence rather than seeing just how far she could push the envelope at the expense of a teenage minor.

Same old thing. Sex sells, doesn't it? It doesn't matter how old the person is - take off the clothes, "cover" with a sheet, and call it "artsy". That's CHILD PORNOGRAPHY to you, Annie! And Billy Ray! C'mon folks! Wake up to what is happening out there. I am a parent and am frightened at what society is calling acceptable. "The good shall be bad and the bad shall be good." Stop the train wreck. Our society needs to get back to decent morals.

Kids grow up, yes. They become sexually aware, fine. It's the grown-ups who pimp them out and exploit their emerging sexuality for mass consumption that I've got a problem with. That includes her parents and the photographer. Apparently her grandparents aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, either.

Photographs, to be seen by millions of people? In a magazine geared to adults?

Common sense, anyone?

Legally the age of consent is 18, but calling a 15 year old a "child" is somewhat misleading. She's gone through puberty, she's coming to terms with an adult identity, and, statistically, she's rapidly approaching the age when most kids start experimenting sexually. I don't think she should be sexualized or encouraged to "promote her career" as such, but she's not an innocent babe. Hell, if this was 100+ years ago, she might already be eligible for courtship. Traditional family values indeed...

Now that's a "Nappy-Headed Hoe".

"Hell, if this was 100+ years ago, she might already be eligible for courtship."

But this isn't 100+ years ago, DM. This is today, a time when people are supposedly more enlightened. 100+ years ago, there were laws against animal cruelty but no laws against child abuse. Times have changed, and for good reason. Courtship at that age is ludicrous and downright wrong. And as far as calling her a child, well, for all intents and purposes, she is a child. She may not be an innocent babe, but the fact that she is underage means the adults there had a responsibility toward her and they ALL fell short. Not just her parents and grandparent but every adult there, since children, i.e. minors, are everyone's responsibility.

It is funny to see how I had the urge to comment on somebody else's life when I should just be minding my own business but I MUST express what I felt when I saw the pictures.
My first thought was "That's it,
She's no longer DIFFERENT! period.
She WAS the next door girl.
She WAS NOT contaminated yet.
She WAS making a difference.
Whenever I saw her interviews
She seemed soooo down to earth
I can't believe what people will do for more money.
She DIDN'T need it!!
Just look at the comment by James (last line of the first paragraph) "no actual montanas were exposed"
I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE HEARING A COMMENT LIKE THAT ABOUT HER.
She just lost her charm.:(

A person is considered a "Child" when under the age of 18 - which society and government has said is the age of an adult. If we look at children nowadays - it seems they have a rush to get older faster and make their mark on society - no matter what the damages. A girl may start into puberty and look like a woman, but hence, she is a YOUNG woman, and not mature enough to make choices like this which are subject to change her life. I'm disappointed that people think a 15 year old can make a life altering decision and claim they are an "adult", when another child shoots a fellow teen and wants to go up on juvenile charges and not adult charges. Hypocrisy at its best.