If there’s one thing Americans love more than celebrity gossip, it’s righteous indignation. The biggest celebrity gossip stories these days are all about righteous indignation, allowing the gossip-pundits to pontificate about how this or that celebrity is a horrible, horrible person.
And Americans also love putting people in prison. Or at least fantasizing about putting people we don’t like in prison, and then sniggering about how those people will get raped in prison. That’s always funny.
I’ve never cared much about Perez Hilton one way or another, but this week’s hatefest freakout disturbs me.
What was Perez Hilton’s sin? He found an embarrassing photo of Miley Cyrus, posted it to a Twitter photo service and linked it on his Twitter feed. Then a bunch of other people — NOT Hilton himself — falsely claimed that Cyrus’s genitalia was visible in the photo. Then a larger bunch of people, most of whom hadn’t actually seen the photo in question, called for Perez Hilton to be thrown in prison on child pornography charges.
The “female celebrity spreading her legs while exiting a car” shot has become a paparazzi staple. And in many cases, female celebrities have been caught in the act with no underwear and their genitalia clearly visible (eg, Britney, Lindsay, Emma).
But that wasn’t the case here. As celebrity upskirt photos go, the Miley Cyrus photo was apparently tame. No private parts were visible. Other photos from the same video shoot clearly show her panties visible through her semi-transparent dress. (For whatever reason, Perez Hilton was the only journalist who bothered to check this fact. Every other journalist just ran with the “Miley Cyrus flashed her bare vagina to photographers” story without making the slightest effort to find out if it was true.)
Cyrus’s panties weren’t visible in the photo either; if they had been, no one would have imagined they saw genitalia. I haven’t seen the original uncensored photo myself. Maybe there was some optical illusion that made people think they saw genitalia. But all anyone really saw were Cyrus’s legs.
You’d think that journalists would be embarrassed at running the bogus scare story. “Correction: Miley Cyrus did not expose her naked genitalia to photographers during a music video shoot. We regret the error.”
But no, after Hilton accurately pointed out that nothing unseemly was visible in the photo, pundits attacked him for not being apologetic enough for the transgression he didn’t actually commit. Salon‘s Tracy Clark-Flory even argued that it didn’t matter, that Perez Hilton should still go to prison for posting a photo of Miley Cyrus’s bare legs.
Exposed flesh-wise, you can see more of Miley Cyrus among the official publicity photos, official music videos, “leaked” cellphone snapshots, bikini photos, etc., available online. Google her and see for yourself.
Righteous indignation over Miley Cyrus’s precocious sexuality is a common theme in celebrity gossip circles. The usual technique is to show her latest sexy publicity photo or video clip or public appearance, then fret about how horrible it is, then show it again, and again and again and again. Hilton’s big sin was not framing the upskirt photo with the proper puritanical hand-wringing. He just had fun with it. Thus the outrage.
UPDATE: CNN’s Showbiz Tonight just teased the story thus: “Perez Hilton is accused of posting a sexually explicit photograph of Miley Cyrus, but he denies it.” A few minutes later, the anchor said, “Brand new Miley Cyrus photo outrage today … A sexually revealing photo of Miley Cyrus allegedly posted by Perez Hilton, but he denies it.”
Hello, you’re CNN! Is it true or not? Did Perez Hilton do this or not? It’s an empirical question, not a matter of opinion, not a he-said-she-said feud with no way of figuring out the truth. Aren’t journalists supposed to make some calls, check the facts and find out if an “accusation” is true or not?
The facts are clear — Perez Hilton did not post a sexually revealing photo of Miley Cyrus. The facts have been clear for more than 24 hours to anyone who actually wants to know the facts. CNN is being blatantly dishonest here. They’re intentionally withholding facts and misreporting the story in order to keep the titillation and outrage factors alive.
CNN is not alone, that’s just the most recent example.
UPDATE: Now CNN has a panel discussion, with two talking heads juxtaposed with rotating photos of Miley Cyrus. Not the photo in question, just other photos. The anchor says, “Miley is just 17, I say posting any suggestive photo is kinda crossing the line.” But during the segment, CNN shows several photos of Miley Cyrus that are more revealing and racier than the photo that Hilton linked.
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY: If you get your news from Perez Hilton, you would know that Miley Cyrus was wearing panties at her video shoot. If you get your news from CNN, E! or Salon, you would still be under the mistaken impression that Miley Cyrus flashed her bare crotch at a group of paparazzi and that there is an explicit photo of the incident floating around the internet.
So who’s being more responsible? Who’s being more exploitative? Who’s acting like a real journalist?
UPDATE (6/17): AOL gossip columnist, Rob Shuter, went on the Joy Behar Show Wednesday night on CNN to talk about the scandal. Shuter says that Miley Cyrus was clearly wearing panties during the video shoot. However, Shuter goes on to claim that Perez Hilton photoshopped the paparazzi photo he Twitter-linked to make it look like Cyrus was not wearing panties.
I haven’t heard that theory anywhere else. It’s a serious charge, if true. It should be fairly easy for someone to check. Hilton got the paparazzi photo from a photo agency. Is there a difference between the agency’s version of the photo and the version that Hilton posted?
Once again, CNN accompanies the story with a montage of racy Miley Cyrus photos, including three from her “Rock in Rio” performance (google it if you want to know what she was wearing at that show). And the AOL/Popeater page with the story and video includes a slideshow of 250 Miley photos.
UPDATE: Some non-American news sources say that Perez Hilton pixelated the area where Cyrus’s thighs intersected with dress hem. If true, wouldn’t that contradict the common claim that Hilton posted an “explicit” photo? I’m more confused than ever.
