Due to its length; you can also download this blog as a PDF file

Media
The media will try and make people believe things; that has always been the case and sadly always will be. There is no such thing as purely objective media, it’s true for any area but it’s very true when it involves young celebrities. With this whole role model thing I think that the media are the main ones to blame for it actually, trying to make people seem a certain way. When they have succeeded in building up this image; they make things look worse than they actually are, focusing on the bad rather than on the good. When a media outlet reports on something that isn’t actually bad but presents it in a way that it is, is it really the “role model” that is doing something bad?

The thing with the media is that it has changed, a lot; mainly because of the internet. The pressures on young stars and the scrutiny on them is so much higher than it has been for people even one generation earlier. More and more people have access to the internet and also access to faster internet. Even when you look at when the likes of Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan had their career start, the internet for the most part was still dial up. Sites like TMZ.com and Perezhilton.com didn’t exist yet, they only started five years ago, let alone the million other clones that are out there by now.

When Britney broke through in 1998 it was still the tabloids that were in charge of celebrity reporting. Scandals existed yes but they were reported on once a week, maybe a couple of times a week. A celebrity was forgotten about fairly quickly, if a scandal even came to light that is. Today with who knows how many gossip sites there is a far greater call for material and modern technology helps them in that.

When we just look at private pictures that are being leaked of celebrities, whether they are scandalous or not they are still being leaked. That didn’t happen in the past. Why not? Because five years ago most phones didn’t have cameras, these days decent digital cameras cost next to nothing and every phone has a camera. A lot more pictures are taken, do you really think that in the past people didn’t do anything “scandalous”? Of course they did, there just weren’t any cameras recording it.

What also happens is that the media keeps the image alive even though it isn’t actually there. When you take Miley Cyrus as an example; her first “scandals” came along very early, when she was only fifteen years old. Be it hacked images or her topless shoot (let us forget for convenience that it was shot by a famous art portrait photographer), so she hasn’t been “perfect” for a long time, so why still pretend that she is?

The topless thing is just another way of treating her differently anyway. When Taylor Momsen does a topless photoshoot with pasties (17, so she can’t exactly show nipple) no one actually notices. Though that might be because the actual shoot isn’t out yet, it’s not even her first topless shoot as a minor, she’s done one before which no one paid attention to. So for something to be a scandal it also takes the media to make it one. If they’d report unbiased, there wouldn’t even be a problem in most cases.

Parents
The role parents play in the role model thing is that it seems like parents are trying to blame the problems of society on young celebrities. “My kid looks up to celebrity A, so if celebrity A does this, so will my kid.” Well no, that’s not how it works.

Having a kid admire a celebrity can be a good thing, it shows them what they can achieve if they set their mind to something. It also brings them joy in the form of music, TV shows and movies. There is nothing bad about it, however using celebrities as a moral guide for kids is wrong. Even worse than that is using them as a scapegoat for the troubles in society. Celebrities are a product of society, they don’t create it.

The unrealistic image
Celebrities are kept to an unrealistic standard, they aren’t allowed to make mistakes. When they do something that is considered “bad” they will be burned for it, doesn’t matter what it is and doesn’t matter whether it’s fair or not. Though the problem is that certain celebrities and companies actually feed into this image; with the purpose of increasing their popularity. Using an artificial image as a marketing tool is only going to do one thing; bite you in the ass.

You can’t present a young teenager as a perfect human being, they don’t even know who they are yet. They still have so many experiences to go through and can’t possible know where their path in life will take them. Yet somehow they are seen by media and parents as perfect human beings, they aren’t allowed to make mistakes. Thing is, there isn’t anyone who doesn’t make mistakes. There are always “bad” things about a person, even if they aren’t really all that bad to begin with.

The “bad” influences
So what bad things are these young celebrities doing that are such a bad influence on our youth?

Smoking
An age old subject by now, the idea that when a young celebrity smokes that the youth will be doing the same. Let me first point out that about 1 out of 5 adults smoke, this is actually a fairly low number, for most countries it will actually be higher. I absolutely hate smoking, I have nothing nice to say about the subject but why hate on someone for smoking?

I also would have to point out that I think that young celebrities might actually take up smoking easier than other groups of people. Why? There are smoking roles in movies, not just for adults but also for teenagers. They of course can’t actually smoke cigarettes because it would be illegal, they use herbal cigarettes. It removes the addictive nicotine factor, however when someone learns to smoke, even if they aren’t real cigarettes they get used to the sensation of inhaling smoke. Combine that with a lot of people in the business smoking I would say that it’s not a stretch that they try smoking real cigarettes at a later date. Also when you add in the stresses of Hollywood and know that nicotine has a calming effect.

Someone like Kirsten Dunst had smoking roles at a teenager but in that process also said that she’d never smoke because she hates it. Doesn’t stop her from smoking now, just like Abigail Breslin just did a role where she had to smoke herbal cigarettes. She also said that she wouldn’t do it, that she hates it but she’s 14, who knows what she will do two or more years from now. Even at an older age when they are legal to smoke it can have an influence.

Anne Hathaway admitted that she pretty much became a chain smoker by shooting her Oscar nominated role Rachel Getting Married (though she says she has quit now). Celebrities will also be hounded for saying that they’d never smoke, they make those statements at a young age. How many things have you done you once said you’d never do?

Note that this is just a form of explanation, some understanding, it’s in no way an excuse. They are influences from their environment, just like there are influences in the environment of other teenagers. A teenager won’t start smoking because a celebrity does; odds are that in most cases they will never see them smoking other than in a movie or two. I would actually have to refer to a quote by Taylor Momsen; she’s not telling kids to go out and buy a pack of cigarettes.

With 1 out of 5 adults smoking, I would also think that it’s far more likely that kids get confronted by the habit in their surroundings. If a teenager has a parent, grandparent, sibling or whoever that smokes, are you really going to blame a celebrity for it? The “cool” factor would be enforced more in school than any other celebrity ever could.

Drugs
Celebrities do drugs thus kids will start doing drugs. No they won’t; when a celebrity goes to rehab for a cocaine addiction, do you honestly think that a teenager goes “I want that too!!!!!” I think quite the opposite. If we’re talking about drugs like marihuana I think it would be wiser to look at the laws in place. It’s attractive because it’s illegal and in the scope of drugs not really all that bad.

I’m willing to bet that there are more pot smokers amongst teens in the USA than there are in the Netherlands. Sure, it’s illegal to do so for teenagers in both countries but when it’s not all that illegal, the danger factor gets removed. Even in the USA it seems to be becoming more and more normal these days, though still illegal.

The recent “trouble” around smoking drugs was of course Miley Cyrus smoking Salvia from a bong. Supposedly causing a dramatic increase in Salvia sales; sales tripled! According to some media. Sure, they might have tripled but how much was the actual increase in volume? We never heard anything about that, did a head shop sell 3 bags instead of 1 or did they sell 300 instead of 100? Statistics can be manipulated and be used to tell your own version of the truth. Besides, who does a sales analysis over a period of one day? Make a statement about it a year from now, not the day after.

Besides, the drug is legal. I might not approve of that sort of thing but no crimes were committed. Miley is deemed such a bad role model for smoking the Salvia, people are crying out that Hannah Montana should be pulled from the Disney channel and what not. So why would those same parents let their kid go see Twilight? Kristen Stewart is a known smoker and most of all a known pot smoker. No idea how often she does it but she has been caught in public doing it yet no one really cared.

Rather telling really, Miley smokes something legal and the world comes to an end, Kristen smokes something illegal and no one really gives a shit. Sure there was a short blip in the media when it happened but nothing more than that. In the end however neither Miley or Kristen is telling anyone to smoke anything.

That Miley smoked a bong once for some reason makes a lot of people think that she is a drug addict. For a drug addict you’d expect someone to know how to smoke a bong a whole lot better but do these people even know what they’re saying? They’re reducing a case where a teenager seemingly tries something for the first time to an addiction. You know what that is? It’s actually an insult to addicts. There is no way to judge based on one single video whether someone has a drug problem or not.

Now there is this supposed idea from Disney to start counseling their young stars, to avoid the pitfalls of the celebrity life. Who better to do it than Britney Spears right? She’s been through things, she knows what she’s talking about. Though the general feeling seems to be that it would mainly be a way for Disney to save their face after Demi Lovato heading to rehab and a lot of people believing that Miley will do the same in the future.

It also makes me wonder about the media, why would you ask thirteen year old Bella Thorne on how she will avoid going the wrong way in the future? I’m pretty sure that if you’d have asked Britney or Lindsay the same question at that age they would have said the exact same thing. Make sure you stay close to your family etc, etc, etc. It doesn’t really matter. Bella doesn’t know what person she’s going to be five years from now and neither does the media. So presenting a thirteen year old as someone who has done nothing wrong is obvious. She hasn’t had the time to make “mistakes” yet.

Alcohol
Again focusing on the USA I have to say that I noticed one thing about people who turn 21. It’s all about the booze, even the ones that don’t really care for alcohol at least make it a plan to have their first drink on that night. There is this build up in culture where having your first drink is a big occasion, though for most it wouldn’t even be the first drink. Referring back to the illegal and dangerous factor as with drugs.

There was the story of Miley again, drinking a beer in a nightclub in Madrid (though the only picture that exists actually only shows her holding it). Outrage! It’s illegal for her to drink! The drinking age is 18 in Madrid? No media, it’s 16, not 18. You can pretty much drink beer and wine everywhere in Europe at that age, in some countries it’s even accepted younger than that. I’ve seen ten year old girls down a pint of Fosters without much trouble (though that isn’t exactly a positive example).

So why is it a problem that Miley drinks a Corona in a night club in Madrid where she is allowed to do so? Because she’s a role model! Yes, a role model that’s not breaking any law; stop the presses
!. Just because the drinking age is 21 in the USA it doesn’t mean she has to conform to that in countries where other laws apply. It’s just a problem because it’s Miley though, when Hayden Panettiere was celebrating New Year’s Eve in Italy with champagne (or the Italian equivalent) when she was just 18, no one cared. Though she wasn’t actually on the Disney Channel but she also didn’t do anything wrong.

Partying
People say that Miley is the next Lindsay or Britney because of her hard partying ways! What hard partying ways? Yes, she’s been to nightclubs and she’s bound to have had private parties (besides ones where some lowlife records her smoking a bong) but does this actually paint us a picture of Miley’s partying life? We don’t see her coming out of night clubs in the middle of the night each and every week. We also don’t know what she does when she is at a club like that.

Oh hang on, we actually do. So far anything I read about Miley being at a club was in the range of she was dancing and drinking Red Bulls. Now I find stuff like Red Bull disgusting but the only thing it is, is an energy drink. It’s not exactly anything bad. Though most gossip sites won’t mention it that way, there it only matters that she was at a night club, that it could possibly have been rented out for a private party doesn’t really matter. Not really interesting anyway; telling the truth would make it seem harmless.

For all we know she actually might have been partying too much, we don’t know. Like so many things we don’t know, however the story the media tells about it isn’t the real one. I would have to ask what teenager doesn’t go to parties though, seems like a very normal thing to do. The thing with Lindsay Lohan also was that her partying ways interfered with her work, showed up to set late or not at all because she was out until who knows how late the day before. Has there been any report about Miley or any other current teen star in that sense? No there hasn’t, none that I know of anyway.

There of course was a tabloid that recently reported that people were worried that Miley would get Kelly Osbourne on the wrong path again (the tabloid in question is as reliable as a broken clock though). Kelly sprung into defense mode and revealed that Miley is actually being a good influence and that she’s learning a lot from her. Now when we shortly go back to the counseling idea with Britney Spears. People feel that it’s a good idea because she’s been through things.

So has Kelly Osbourne but how do people react? She’s a drug addict and parties herself! Have you taken a look at Kelly Osbourne lately? She changed, a LOT, she’s put some work into herself. She’s even admitting that she can’t promise that she will never relapse. Does that sound like a person who hasn’t faced their mistakes from the past? I think not, so why wouldn’t someone like Kelly be able to help someone like Miley? Guide her through things that come with the celebrity life at that age? The only thing I can think of is the prejudice against Miley and that for some reason people just don’t like Kelly.

Doesn’t every teenager go to parties? Even the biggest couch potato does once in a while, the only thing they look at in regards to young celebrities there is music. Depending on the party there might be some Miley playing or the Pretty Reckless. People throw parties; that is being taught to kids from a very young age, starting with their first birthday.

Clothing
Oh yes, the clothes celebrities wear. What would the gossip press do without them? When you go judging dresses on a red carpet, go right ahead. That’s a public spectacle anyway so people are bound to be judging what people wear. There is also a sort of dress code for certain events so it’s natural that people would be required to follow that.

What about their day to day clothing though? Does it really matter? People seem to think so and the number of paparazzi sort of prove that. Though what I don’t get, a couple of years ago there was this trend where you could see celebrities wearing three or four outfits on the same day. People complained that they were treating the streets as a red carpet and yes, it did make things look very fake. That seems to have changed though, when I look at paparazzi pics things seem to have gotten way more casual. So what do people do? They complain, that celebrities should try harder. You truly can’t please everyone.

If we look at Miley Cyrus again; she has this tendency to wear things more than once. Even days in a row when she could afford to wear something new every day! Why would she? If she likes a pair of shoes or if she likes a T-shirt why not wear it frequently? I actually commend her for that. Whether people like the things she wears is a personal matter.

The same goes for her stage outfits, too sexy a lot of people say. Sure, the outfits she wears aren’t exactly shy and there is bound to be some sex sells factor involved. That they fit with what she does and that they might be comfortable is of less importance obviously. If Miley wears a leotard on stage, does it cause an increase of leotard sales all of a sudden? No of course not, it’s a stage outfit, it’s for a performance, it’s not what she wears out in public on her off day.

It’s the same old story anyway. I remember that my high school made the national news because of our new anti-Britney Spears dress code, a ban on stomach revealing tops. You know, because it was a Catholic school and one or two students actually wore one to school. Were they inspired by Britney? Possibly, was it a fashion trend? No. If Miley was trying to start a fashion trend; wouldn’t her clothing line feature more leotards and less normal teenage clothes?

Same goes for any clothing range presented by a teen celebrity really. I would say that Selena Gomez’ clothing line is very conservative compared to what she wears. Yes, people tend to ignore Selena a bit but if they would actually take notice, her casual clothing style isn’t exactly all that shy either. Very casual yes but casual to the point of no bras being present. Even Dakota Fanning can be seen out and about revealing a whole lot of bra, there’s just no one that cares.

Tattoos
I honestly believed that tattoos were getting more and more widely accepted. That they were becoming normal, where in the past there was still a stigma on tattoos we even have tattooing celebrities these days. I mean someone like Kat Von D. is doing well for herself and she’s a tattoo artist who managed to become famous.

You’ll also have a hard time finding a young celebrity who doesn’t have any ink, sure they exist but in a way I believe that the tattoo has truly become mainstream. Until Miley Cyrus decided to get inked up that is. The girl likes tattoos, that much has already become evident now. Getting three within a year when you’re only 17 is quite a lot, though none of them are actually really big and you actually need parental consent for it, so they would have been signed off on.

So why is it scandalous that she gets them? It seems that just because it’s Miley, it’s a bad thing that she gets tattoos. That she’s getting them because she’s rebelling, trying to get rid of her Disney image and what not. I really need to find a new definition of the word rebel when it means that someone gets a tattoo in memory of a dead friend, designed by her own mother no less. The word LOVE in her ear, as a symbol to keep the negativity out or a heart on her pinky finger because everyone in her family has a heart tattooed on their hand. Here I was thinking that things like skulls and cross bones or upside down pentagrams were signs of that. It’s also odd to rebel by getting tattoos when your parents both have who knows how many tattoos.

If it’s a way of getting rid of a Disney image; why has no one ever written about the many tattoos of Hilary Duff? She was a Disney star a big one and can be seen sporting something like half a dozen tattoos. When someone like Hayden Panettiere gets a tattoo it’s funny because there is a spelling error in it, otherwise it doesn’t matter. Those girls aren’t exactly old either and teenagers also look up to them, so why is them having tattoos fine but not for Miley?

I’ve also never really heard anyone make a statement about Demi Lovato rebelling with her tattoos, while she has one in pretty much the same place as Miley (just on the other side of her chest) and one behind her ear. Because no one cares really, though maybe now they will more seeing she was in rehab. Which in itself is quite wrong, putting more pressure on someone right after they have dealt with underlying issues.

Why are tattoos bad? There are many forms of body modification. A lot of people are saying that Miley should get her front teeth fixed because she has a crooked tooth. Getting this fixed would be a form for body modification, just like a tattoo or piercing. If she’s fine with her crooked tooth why would she get it fixed? Just because other people think she should? People also wouldn’t be bitching as much if she had gotten breast implants, sure they’d bitch about it somewhat but tattoos? Oh yeah, those are way worse. You know, a little ink added as body art is far worse than being put to sleep and two small silicone bags shoved into a chest.

Plastic surgery isn’t a bad thing for people who it can help to improve their body image, just like a tattoo isn’t anything bad. People are free to do with their bodies what they want, I wouldn’t be surprised if some gossip blog writer goes to visit her botox clinic right after trashing Miley for getting a tattoo. No, you don’t have to approve of tattoos, you can hate them all you want. Does it mean they are a bad thing? Of course not, they’re a choice like so many things in life.

Sex
Oh yes, the sex subject. Are celebrities still virgins? Are they staying pure until marriage? Honestly, why do people want to know and why are they putting their noses into private matters?

Here is an example of where marketing ties in with the whole role model shit. The purity rings, rings that are shoved on teen stars swearing abstinence until they are married. These promises are made by young teens, when you ask someone in the age range 12-14 on whether they plan on having sex anytime soon, I think that the answer will most likely be no. It’s not a subject they would have thought about all that much yet.

The promise ring is just stating the obvious at that stage, something the media feeds into and blows up as something good. Don’t we live in a world where sex before marriage has become widely accepted? I’m not saying that abstinence is a bad idea, it’s something that is a feeling that someone can have, something they feel they have to do. I don’t think a ring is needed to enforce that. Teenagers change, when a teenager puts on a ring at 12 and at 16 realizes that they want to have sex, is the ring really going to stop them? I sincerely doubt it.

Now that Selena Gomez is rumored to be dating Justin Bieber it has actually become a subject of interest that she doesn’t wear a purity ring anymore. Somehow that means that she’s having sex now. What if she did? Who on earth cares, it’s her business and no one else’s. She doesn’t need a ring to show whether she is still a virgin or not. She also might simply not feel that way anymore and removed the ring for other reasons without giving up her virginity. The gossip sites want the juicy stuff though obviously.

In a way, I always felt a bit strange about people like Selena or Miley wearing them. It almost seems like they were told to put them on, seeing that in a way they are an insult to their parents. Why would you advocate something as wrong when you’re saying that you yourself are a mistake in that sense? Though it seems that Disney and the media have toned down on the whole purity ring thing, I haven’t seen it pointed out anywhere in a while. Except for the Selena thing that is.

Homophobia
Recently there were leaked pictures of Miley Cyrus and Demi Lovato, pictures in which they are close to other girls. Wildly inappropriate is what people are calling it, girl on girl action! First of of all, if you want girl on girl action go rent a good Lesbian porn movie. Second, has the world gone homophobic or something?

Since when is it wrong for a girl to kiss another girl? Whether people approve of it or not, being gay is a normal thing in our society these days. So what if Miley or Demi would be gay or bisexual? If that’s their nature, so be it; there would be nothing about it. Even suggesting it is a stretch, have the people who write that stuff ever gone to teenage parties when they were younger? Girls getting cozy with each other really isn’t anything rare and in a lot of cases there isn’t even anything gay involved. Miley and Demi goofing off in pictures isn’t anything different by the looks of it.

So what if her make up artist lifts up Miley’s dress a little or has her mouth close to Miley’s breast? Miley’s expression to me suggests that they’re goofing off. She’s doing it to keep up with Demi is what some people are even suggesting. Those pictures aren’t leaked by Miley herself, or Demi for that matter. The picture was taken back in June (which can be easily figured out but the media are just too lazy to do so), long before there was any Demi “picture scandal” so how was there any intent to spread it? If she wanted to start a scandal she’d take a new pic now and spread it, not use one from six months ago.

It’s a pretty well known fact by now that Miley has a serious picture leak somewhere and that is something she should take care of. The idea that anyone would leak pictures on purpose, to ask for bad press is just beyond weird. They really should take a look at how humans work, when you’re beyond hounded, beyond trashed in the media, no one is going to do anything on purpose to make it worse.

Then there are is the on stage move where Miley dips one of her dancers. Girl on girl kiss on stage; Scarlett Johansson and Sandra Bullock did an on stage kiss this year and that was even acted but it was still more of a kiss than anything Miley did. I haven’t seen any lip locking on stage by Miley, it’s just a dance move, part of the choreography, deal with it. I really question what people are thinking when they write that sort of crap. Do they even realize that they’re being beyond homophobic, by calling something interpreted as gay, bad?

Morality
Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan are apparently bad people for having personal issues. Yes, they have committed criminal acts in getting busted for things like DUI but I think it’s widely proven that they have underlying causes for their problems. They’re not bad people, they’re just people who have made mistakes and in some cases continue to make them. Do they have any bad intent in doing so? I sincerely doubt so and that is what makes a bad person stand out; intent!

The whole bad girl thing is beyond screwed up anyway. Like Miley and Demi are branded the new Disney bad girls now, sure, they could go the way of Britney or Lindsay but so could Selena. There is no way to predict the future and times have changed a lot since Britney and Lindsay started their downward spirals. Also just as I said, it doesn’t actually make them bad people. That’s however what people make them out to be. Give these people a chance before branding them a certain way, or would you like to be judged as someone you aren’t? When someone says Miley or Demi are just like Lindsay or Britney; it just shows that people aren’t even willing to actually look at a person.

What I really can’t stand is people proclaiming what bad Christians people like Miley are. To me religion is still something that is a personal choice and something that is interpreted by oneself. So what if Miley is a Christian? Just because she interprets it differently than someone else doesn’t make her way wrong. People even playing the religion card on the leaked pictures is beyond screwed up. Miley has always shown support for the gay community, like a lot of other Christians. She’s dedicated songs to them and has even publicly commented in support of gay marriage, through all of it she still calls herself Christian. Why would one picture make her a bad Christian all of a sudden?

Morality is something that is based on your own beliefs and guide lines you were taught in your life. Just because one person considers something bad, it doesn’t actually make something bad. That’s the key with using celebrities as a role model, they were raised with different morals. So why would anyone want their kids raised by someone who doesn’t meet their own beliefs and values? What should be admired are the talent and what they achieve and on whether they actually area a good person or not. Whether they agree on certain things and choices in celebrity’s lives shouldn’t matter.

Sometimes I do wonder when masses of parents and the media will break out their pitch forks and burn someone like Miley at the stake. Because that is what it’s starting to look like; a witch hunt.

Lessons learned
It’s easy for parents to blame problems in society on celebrities instead of using them. So what if Miley smoked drugs? You don’t want your kids to smoke drugs? Use it as an opportunity to talk about it. Make it a subject of conversation, don’t remove Miley from their lives just because you don’t want them exposed to something. When your kids like Miley, they will find a way to see or hear Miley. The internet makes sure of that.

The main lesson that should be learned from that bong video is that you should be more careful in picking the right friends and be less naive in certain respects; which is a valuable lesson. Also what Miley has done since then should be commended; rather than coming up with some weak public apology (if she even needs to apologize for anything, though sooner or later she sort of has to address it to avoid the media going all over her) she continues to live her life and continues to work. That now her Christmas (which she spent with her whole family) and New Year’s wishes for her fans are being dragged through the media is weak at best. Miley being mature about a situation like this isn’t exactly news; it’s how she usually reacts.

Yes, celebrities can be used to teach, use it as an opportunity to discuss the pitfalls in life. Be it sex, drugs, smoking, alcohol or whatever. There are even examples of parents who rather discuss or share experiences with their children rather than shutting them out of their lives. It is a fair question, would you rather that your kid takes their first drink at a shady party or in the safety of their own home under parental supervision?

When you tell your kids that they can’t admire a celebrity because they made a mistake in their eyes, aren’t you telling your kid that they aren’t allowed to make mistakes? Mistakes are learning experiences in life, what they’re also saying is that you should shut people who made mistakes out of your life. How is that a good lesson to teach your kids?

These people also call someone like Miley dumb because they make mistakes; which isn’t very moral to me either. Do people honestly believe that there are no smokers, alcoholics or drug addicts in Mensa? It doesn’t matter how smart you are, everyone makes “mistakes” if you even want to call them that. Intelligence isn’t the same as wisdom and I think there is little wisdom in shunning someone for making mistakes.  Everyone makes mistakes out of naivety, it doesn’t make someone dumb, it’s how we learn. I would also doubt that someone with no brains at all could achieve the level of their craft as most of the celebrities that are being called dumb.

Most of all these celebrities aren’t telling anyone to do the same thing as they do. They will all say that they are growing up and that they will make mistakes, does anyone listen? No, they are branded as a role model and have to fit some stereotypical straightjacket. It’s not fair and it’s just not right, you can’t ask someone to live a fake life because someone else looks up to them.

Would you want to live a life with that constant pressure on you? The idea that whatever you do, however harmless it may be that people will look into it and try to find something bad? It’s no pressure that should be put on anyone, let alone teenagers who are still in the process of finding themselves. Even when they say things like that they aren’t heard, people focus too much on the role model thing. So in that sense celebrities are being a good role model, listen to yourself and admit that you’re not perfect, you’re going to make mistakes. That’s the sort of thing people should listen to. They have their own message, not just the one the media wants you to hear.

What is my conclusion?
So what if a sixteen year old teen star is sharing an after sex cigarette with her girlfriend while studying their new matching crotch tattoos. They’re not telling other people to do the same.

You can also download this blog as a PDF file

It’s probably not a secret that I prefer Miley Cyrus over Selena Gomez. I won’t say that one is the better actor because I just haven’t seen enough of either of them to make that final judgment. Miley has done The Last Song yes and to me that shows that she has potential but that she also has a lot to learn. What I’ve seen of Selena’s acting is DVD and TV stuff and there she’s only really played the same character over and over again. Will have to see how she does in tougher roles.

Though I would have to add, if we ever get to see her in tougher roles. Right now Selena just seems a bit too safe in her career choices for my liking. That’s always been my main gripe with Selena anyway, it’s all a bit too sweet. Also when I look at her music, it’s all safe standard pop, there is no message behind the music. Can’t say that I take her music career that serious, also when I see her performing live there just seems to be this little bit of stage presence missing. That’s besides using backing tracks which to me is a no no for a singer, especially when you go on a nationwide talent show to perform. Which Selena did while performing on the America’s Got Talent results show, I actually expected the buzzers to go off at one point.

People keep saying that Miley can’t sing live but for some reason people expect her to sound CD quality perfect, sure she sounds rough at times but that’s probably due to her walking around on stage. You can’t really find fault with performances where she is forced to stay in one place. She however has one very major advantage over Selena, stage presence. If anything Miley has too much of it. Maybe she can spare Selena a little.

Miley seems more of a musician than Selena anyway, much more involved in the creative process behind the music, you just have to take a look at the writing credits on their albums. She also isn’t as safe in her choices which is quite obvious, though most people will look at her wardrobe in that sense. When I look at her movie choices however they are roles that I don’t think Selena would pick yet. It’s not going to be to the liking of her entire fan base but I see that as a good thing, she is out there to please herself and become the actress she wants to become, not the actress other people want her to be.

When you look at the past there are similar comparisons being made, the Lindsay Lohan and Hilary Duff comparisons, feuds and what not are probably the best example. They both started out working for Disney and were seen as competitors. Hilary however usually took the safe route while Lindsay made a little more risky choices as far as roles are concerned. Risky choices also mean mistakes though, so that’s why we ended up with horrendous movies like Just My Luck and I Know Who Killed Me.

Not that movies like The Perfect Man are any better but they aren’t as noticeable on a resumé. Note that I’m only talking about career moves here, I’m not talking about DUI’s, drugs or what not. That Lindsay blew her career with that (for now) isn’t of any influence on those earlier career choices. Not that Hilary is having a stellar career right now, seems to be at a bit of a standstill. For Selena’s sake I hope that her safe choices won’t make it hard to transition into more adult themes like Hilary has. The main difference between Miley/Selena and Hilary/Lindsay is that it’s all happening at a younger age. Miley is still only seventeen and we’re already talking about the next steps in her career. Most people don’t even have a career started at that age.

When I look at all those careers though, so of all the people that are considered Disney stars. They are all different. You’d think that a Disney star does nothing but TV, movies and music for Disney. Thing is….. Lindsay Lohan was signed to Universal music, not Disney music. Selena has done several movies outside of Disney already, most recently Ramona and Beezus for Fox, the same thing goes for Hilary. Miley has never even starred in a Disney Channel movie, she’s only had a cameo in High School Musical 2. If we go back even further we get to people like Britney Spears, she only did a TV show for Disney so why would she be called a Disney star?

So yeah, if you ask me, there is no such thing as a Disney star. There are just stars that happen to work for Disney a lot. The main choices in their careers would still be made by them, not Disney. The opportunity to work for Disney is not the same as being owned by Disney and that is apparently what people seem to feel.

It can be funny sometimes if you look at filmographies and it turns out that you’ve seen them in movies before without even realising it. I’m not counting tiny guest spots on TV shows right now; if I did that I could be going on forever seeing that’s pretty much how every actor gets started.

The first time I really had that was when I was looking at the filmography of Jena Malone. Granted, she’s not really a superstar but she still gets a fair amount of movies done. At some point I did check out her filmography because I didn’t really know her, turns out I have a on DVD with the woman; Contact in this case which she made when she was twelve years old. Her role in that movie is better known for a difficult special effect (It’s extensively mentioned in the extras; Jena is running towards a mirror but you can’t see the camera. In 1997 that was a lot more difficult than it would be these days.). She plays the younger version of Jodie Foster in the movie.
Another case like this is Hilary Duff, though I had seen her on Lizzie McGuire before seeing the movie Human Nature. Human Nature is a movie by Studio Canal, a European studio, in which she plays the younger version of Patricia Arquette. It did take some time before the movie was released which is clearly shown by the fact that Hilary looks a fair amount younger than on Lizzie McGuire. I didn’t even recognise her in the part.

Most recent example would be Miley Cyrus; people in general think that Hannah Montana is her first acting job. Well it isn’t, I only saw part of the movie Big Fish before every hearing of Miley Cyrus but it turns out she’s in it. Granted she only says two words in her whole appearance but she’s still there. She’s not even on the cast list as Miley but as Destiny Cyrus, I guess she was still a bit behind on her growth back then seeing she was playing an eight year old when she was ten.

For another Disney star, Vanessa Hudgens, it’s known that before doing High School Musical she was in the flopped Thunderbirds movie. Not that many people realise that she was in the critically acclaimed Thirteen; which launched Evan Rachel Wood’s career. I sure hadn’t a clue that she was in it before her name was known to everyone.

Even Dakota Fanning played the young version of Reese Witherspoon in Sweet Home Alabama before anyone really had heard of her as a child actor. It just shows that real overnight sensations are extremely rare though some studios are now trying to create some. Like New Line which is trying to launch Dakota Blue Richards through the Golden Compass movies.

So the next time if you think you see an overnight sensation you might want to check out the rest of their filmography, it might turn out that you’ve seen them before.

10. Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Lynn was Zoey on Zoey 101 last year, Zoey this year and Zoey next year. Nothing else at all, Zoey 101 is all she does so she’s pretty much going nowhere in Hollywood. Bad press surrounding her family isn’t exactly helping her either.

9. Hilary Duff
Last year I thought Hilary was finally going to do other roles than the sweet and nice girl. She did in War Inc.; the problem with that is that the movie still hasn’t found a distributor. Other things she has seen in 2007 is a Razzie nomination for worst actress and a new album which pretty much failed if you compare them to her previous albums.

8. Sara Paxton
Her only project for 2007 was Sydney White which pretty much flopped. In 2008 the only thing she has lined up is Superhero! Which is destined to fail, so her career really isn’t going anywhere right now.

7. Kirsten Dunst
Sure Kirsten has been in one of the most successful movies of the year but that’s all Kirsten is right now; Mary Jane Watson.

6. Kaley Cuoco
The Big Bang Theory might be halfway successful her other project for 2007 was Cougar Club a straight to DVD comedy. For 2008 the only thing she has lined up next to the Big Bang Theory is Killer Movie, another movie that’s destined to fail. Kaley is pretty much doomed to star in mediocre sitcoms.

5. Lacey Chabert
She never managed to equal the success of her Party of Five days and her role in Mean Girls. In 2007 she only did several small unnoticeable independent movie and at this time it seems to be the same thing for 2008.

4. Michelle Trachtenberg
In 2007 nothing featuring Michelle was released; she was supposed to star in a new show called the Hill but it was put on hold before they even finished filming the pilot. The show is still on hold for 2008 so it might come out after all. Another thing coming out in 2008 is Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight a movie that has been in development for decades but won’t make it past a video released; so that failed even before it was released. The only thing worthwhile for 2008 will probably be the independent movie The Possibility of Fireflies. She also landed a role in the movie 17 but that won’t be released until 2009.

3. Tina Majorino
Tina’s highlight in her career was of course Napoleon Dynamite. In 2007 her main things were her roles on the TV shows Veronica Mars and Big Love. Both shows have ended now so at this time there are no projects listed for Tina. She seems to be a talented girl to me but it’s just not working for her right now.

2. Emmy Rossum
We can be short about Emmy; there were no movie roles for her in 2007 and there are non listed in 2008. She of course released her first album but it failed miserably with a peak ranking of 199 on the Billboard Charts, she’s pretty much lucky she even made it onto the Billboard Charts.

1. Lindsay Lohan
Not really a shocker here; both movies she had coming out in 2007 flopped and for 2008 her movie roles aren’t that certain yet. The going to rehab twice in 2007 doesn’t help her either, she sure went from making 7.5million dollars a movie to someone who studios don’t want to touch quickly. She pretty much has to start her career from scratch again.

A recent example of this is Hilary Duff, she has been seen wearing a dress that pushes up her breasts a bit and straight away websites and magazines are reporting she had implants put in. One picture isn’t proof, if you want proof you have to compare images over a longer period of time. After those pictures were released there have been plenty of pictures where Hilary looks as always, I don’t see them retracting any of their previous made statements though. Of course these sites don’t post this as facts but as rumours so technically they wouldn’t have to retract anything but it’s still annoying.

The best example over a period of years however is probably Lindsay Lohan. When she started to get more media attention in her Freaky Friday and Mean Girls period the breast implant rumours started to pop up all around the place. Is it really that rare to see a girl with above average breasts? I don’t remember stories like this showing up when Scarlett Johansson became more popular and she sure has a nice pair.

With Lindsay however they claim that they popped up over night, again I wonder if these people studied images over a longer period of time. I highly doubt it, if you study images of Lindsay from when she was fifteen up to when she was eighteen there isn’t actually that much difference, just a case of gradual development. A proper plastic surgeon wouldn’t operate on a sixteen year old anyway. We all know that Lindsay had some weight problems so when she lost weight her breasts also got smaller which is a normal thing to happen because breasts contain a lot of fatty tissue. However certain media outlets reported that Lindsay had her implants taken out.

If that wasn’t enough they turned it around once she got her weight issues under control and gained weight again. Her breasts grew a bit again so the implant rumour came back. Like a girl of that age would have her breasts swapped like a dress or a pair of shoes, not really realistic. Are people really that desperate for a story? Lindsay sells magazines we all know that but at least try to be original and don’t drag up tired old stories.

These girls get famous as teenagers, teenagers develop so of course their cup sizes develop as well. As with the Hilary Duff example clothing can also do a lot; there is a product called a wonderbra for a reason. Some of these made to fit dresses also do a lot, I don’t know how many comments I’ve heard about Scarlett Johansson’s Golden Globes at the Golden Globes in 2006. Nowhere did they ever mention the word implants with that one; that doesn’t really make sense to me. Why would Scarlett be treated differently than Lindsay or Hilary?

It does make me wonder who will be next? Who of the younger one starlets will be the next one to get accused of getting implants at too young an age? My bet is on Miley Cyrus, she has been developing over the last couple of months and is starting to get more popular with the media. Won’t be long until she’ll be hounded by paparazzi day and night and tabloids will tray and stuff up to write about. They’ll have to wait a bit though, plastic surgery on a sixteen year old would be more believable than on a fifteen year old (she turned fifteen today, so happy birthday Miley). So we’ll have to wait another year for those Miley Cyrus got breast implants headlines.

All of this is a bit sad really, good thing that not all the sites on the internet are like this. We wouldn’t post about it unless it actually happened and if we did by mistake we would always retract or correct a story.