New York Times Takes Back Miley Cyrus Headline: "She Was Not Topless"

The New York Times treated yesterday's Miley Cyrus/Vanity Fair story as a business one, running the headline "A Topless Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise." But today it appears the Times realized how damaging a loaded word like topless could be — especially when Cyrus wasn't topless at all. Today's paper ran a correction and the online edition revised its headline to "Revealing Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise." The correction is below:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 29, 2008

A headline and an article on Monday about a Vanity Fair photograph showing the actress Miley Cyrus in a suggestive pose left the incorrect impression that she was bare-breasted. While the pose was indeed revealing, she was wrapped in what appeared to be a bedsheet; she was not topless.

It appears those plummeting circulation numbers and the impending layoffs have left the desperate Times resorting to desperate, sensational measures. Maybe Brian Williams is onto something when he says he doesn't know what the Times stands for anymore.

Comments

[fetacheese]

oh my god you would think the girl was flapping her nipples around in this picture...­.GET OVER IT PEOPLE! and anyone saying she has a "come hither look" or that she looks like she's asking for it or wants it or whatever are the people we should be afraid of because that totally sounds like a line a rapist uses in his defense. she is fifteen years old! she is a young woman! she has sexuality! why don't you freak out about the teenage boys gyrating in their music videos or writing sexually explicit lyrics? because--and this may come as a newsflash to some of you but-- teenagers have sex. GASP! even the girls--GASP! they've been doing it since the beginning of time! in fact, miley would have been pregnant and married fifty years ago! the puritanical outrage is seriously getting REALLY old.

[chocolategenius]

Were she and her parents drugged or perhaps blindfolded when these pictures were taken? The Hanna Montana juggernaut is making alot of easy money for Disney so I am sure everyone knew exactly what was going on when the pictures were taken and published. The pictures are not going to have anymore effect on the franchise then the similar stunts Madonna pulled affected her appeal to girls the same age. The Cyrus's are probably set for life financially even if Miley decided to "retire" tomorrow. I actually think the pictures were taken because Miss Cyrus wants to make a transition from being a tween celebrity to being taken more seriously as an actress. She is a product more of excellent marketing on the part of Disney than talent , so provacative (for a fifteen year old) pictures were probably the only thing she and her parents could think of doing. I am reminded of the two Tiffany's of my generation and their mall performances and lack of real talent but for the time, popularity with that age group of girls and how they could do no wrong.

[drblack]

This gossip is still here?!!
The world has many important issues and problems and many people in the USA still wallow in filth, gossip and speculation.
The corporate media is a joke.

[dgscol]

What ever happened to the fun-loving, bright, young woman Hanna Montana? Now we have Miley, without the S in front, posed as a boudoir queen, fodder for the pedophiles. If there is any art in this it must be a statement about the ugliness of the exploitation of our youth.

[Janco54]

Aren't there more important things to talk about? For the love of God! Who cares? They're photos. They're artful. They DO NOT require us tearing down a young woman and her entire family.
People are dying, trying to fight a war with no mission. We can't see photos of that because it would be bad for our morale as Americans. But we can see photos of Ms. Cyrus and go completely insane because...­...
I haven't figured out the "because".­..

[cityspeak]

Isn't there a war they should be covering?

And here is another thought the great USA should ponder for awhile: This young lady is a power house in her popularity and ability to create revenue. Why is she asked to disrobe for our viewing pleasure? Is the message here to every woman in our country "just show us your ****".?

[drblack]

Brainless is the correct term.

[SlippingInTheDip]

time for Daddy to buy her some implants..­.

[ruffmama]

forget wht she is wearing she looks like she is undead. The coloring is horrible and the picture is not very pretty. But if the uproar is over how much skin she is showing? GET OVER IT!

[RanTheMan]

They can't even be honest in their retraction.

"...actres­s Miley Cyrus in a suggestive pose..."

Suggestive?
Suggestive of what exactly?

[zona9]

Well, let's see..she's in a bed, with a sheet coyly pulled up around her..with blood red lipstick and sweaty mussed hair...giv­ing the camera a sexy come hither look. They're suggesting, quite clearly, that she just got laid.

It's really gross and reminds me of that Calvin Klein campaign years ago that had a bunch of pre pubescent looking teens posed in what looked like a creepy trailor in overtly sexual poses-the whole thing meant to suggest a kiddie porn filming session.

[NoSillyName]

"actress"? I thought she was is "singer".

[standforpeace]

So this kid was deliberately posed so as to appear topless but she was actually wearing a sheet? Boy am I glad to hear that; for a moment there I thought that both the New York Times and Vanity Fair were too rags that were engaged in the practice of sexualizing a child for profit.

[mellene]

Well anytime there's big money involved you'll find the media waffling on telling the truth. Pity the poor slobs who get charged with kiddy porn download possession. This is kiddy porn, period. The NYTimes ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[TommyBobama]

For what it's worth:

From a legal standpoint this is not "kiddie porn" or child pornography, because there is no sexual activity portrayed in the image. The technical and legal term for an image such as this is child erotica.

[CammyV]

Uh, yeah she was topless. She was discretly covered up by a sheet, but was she wearing a top. Doesn't look like it.

[recless]

Look at her neck. You can see the neck strap of the top she had on....

[zona9]

No that's her hair.

[Alexandra Simone]

I swear to god that girl is going to be a porn star when she grows up.