In the Miley Cyrus flap, where's critique of photographer?

But among those who agree that the photos represent a new low in the public sexualization of children, where is the passionate and persistent critique of famed photographer Annie Leibovitz, who took the photo?

As I read (yet another) article on the matter in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 4, 2008, I searched for criticism of Leibovitz but found none.

There certainly was criticism in the article for young Miley: "Dr. Shannon Fox, a psychologist who studies the sexualization of young girls in media, was unequivocally critical of Cyrus' decision to pose in such a manner."

And Dr. Fox is right to be critical of such a decision. That's one way children and teens learn right decision making – having their decisions evaluated by adults. Another way they learn is by experiencing the fruits of those decisions. Miss Cyrus may now be asking herself, as the Apostle Paul prompts the rest of us to ask ourselves: "What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed?" (Romans 6:21).

Proverbs (22:15) tells us that "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child," but that's one reason it is called childhood. That's why they need responsible adults in their lives.

There has also been criticism of Miley's parents, grandmother, and teacher, which is appropriate. Most accounts say Mom and Dad were not there when the photo was taken, though the grandmother and teacher were. Perhaps they felt an awkward discomfort during the shoot but went along with the "spirit of the moment." It would be nice to give them the benefit of a doubt, though this doesn't make the decision any less wrong.

But where is the outrage concerning Ms. Leibovitz's choice for creating such a shot in the first place? People.com reported on April 28 that the renowned photographer thinks the image is "simple" and "beautiful," but does this justify such an ethical lapse? Are "simple" and "beautiful" sufficient justifiers for any photograph or image we wish to publish? I shudder when thinking of the sheer size of the flood gates that would be opened if that were so – and all the more when I think of what would come through those gates.

Actually, Ms. Leibovitz has apologized... sort of. The photographer is quoted as saying: "I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted." Of course, that comes across as an expression of regret about "outdated societal hang-ups" and not about a sad lapse in ethical and professional judgment.

Let me suggest a different apology for the celebrated picture taker: "Miley Cyrus is a beautiful girl on her way to becoming a beautiful young woman. In my efforts to showcase that beauty in an artistic manner, I crossed a line without thinking. Our society has succeeded in paradoxically trivializing sexuality while simultaneously glorifying it, and consequently borders that were once obvious are now effortlessly crossed as our moral and ethical confusion deepens. I apologize for contributing to this confusion, and for taking an inappropriate picture of Miss Cyrus. There are more important measures of what is right and wrong than what a photographer or her subject thinks is beautiful or artistic."

Thankfully, we have a time-tested measure for educating us in right and wrong: the word of God. If you would like to start seeing that standard in a new light – a perspective that will transform your life – consider ordering our free booklet The Ten Commandments. God has not left us at the mercy of society and the whims of fallible human judgment in such matters.