http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/fashion/11miley.html?_r=1&hp
An article about Miley fans picking up on her overtly sexual image change..and not liking it. As a mother of a young girl (and a feminist) it was nice to see the article from the mouths of kids, instead of an adult analysis of why Miley's tricks may/may not be working.
Like June mentioned in class, the children are cited by their first names, instead of by their last.
I love what one girl subtly says about Miley's change:
“I feel like she acts 25. She looks so old. She is too old for herself.” She, like others her age, has had enough.
Further down, the article takes an serious approach by quoting Gary Marsh, president of entertainment and chief creative officer of Disney Channels Worldwide.
Mr. Marsh said it is not Disney’s responsibility to guide her through the transition. “The network’s role is not to give personal advice,” he said.
I enjoyed the article because it was nice to hear children's entertainment from a child's point of view. It seems like a well-rounded article, interviewing a good amount of valuable sources.
It is a very refreshing angle on a tired story of child-star turned sex-symbol.
ReplyDeleteThe article only briefly touched on the point of Cyrus' change; to get older fans. It is interesting to read the research on her declining appeal to the tween market, but a few quotes from perhaps a 17-21 demographic would have given the article extra depth.
I'm a little skeptical of the credibility of Mom blogs, having 26 000 subscribers doesn't guarantee quality of content or demonstrate a consensus of mothers from America or the 150 other countries where Cyrus is well known.
I have to echo that this is a refreshing take on the routine "controversy over the child pop star turning into a sex symbol" story.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't come off as preachy one way or another. To me, the point, if you will, was that a lot of little kids are turned off by her new identity, which I didn't expect. And that surprise is what made the story interesting. It kind of reminds me of what Filipov mentioned last night about balancing what the reader knows (or expects) and what the reader doesn't know (or expect).