Miley Cyrus dominates the entertainment news, again. This time, the teenage star of “Hannah Montana” created uproar because of a portrait by Annie Liebovitz that appeared in Vanity Fair. Even if we have seen more of High School Musical’s Vanessa Hudgens, even if Anne Hathaway can play a dirty rich girl in Brokeback Mountain, and even though novelists and artists have been documenting the sexuality of teenagers for millennia, this is deemed “newsworthy”.

Again, we are confronted by the elastic boundaries governing the ethics of publicity and public relations.

According to Wikipedia, “Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviors, a person’s philosophy of life.” So let’s apply this — let’s pretend that Miley is your client. How would you go about promoting her? To what end would you go to promote her?

We know that Miley is a well known brand. She’s completed a huge tour. Hannah Montana is a well-known Disney brand. She has a new movie coming out in 2009.

Anything current? Nope. So whaddya do?  You find the story or make the story.

You see,  the media are hungry. Feed ‘em or they go hunting. So, that sort of brings me back to the second consideration: To what end would you go?

- Would you create a controversy? We know that controversy sells, especially in the US and the national bias towards the reactionary. She would gain top-of-mind name recognition with an expanded audience, and maybe lose a few more conservative constituents. However, a well-timed, well-worded apology would take care of that.

You see, the thing that is not sitting well for me in this controversy is that I think that it was good PR for Miley Cyrus regardless of age. My husband, who would not have known her name before Sunday, emailed this to me from a photography web site. And by using his case example of one, this tactic worked. Now he knows who she is.

I also believe that it was executed ethically. Values are fickle in North America. As a society, as quickly as we condemn the girl for demonstrating her burgeoning sexuality, we will forgive her. We find the reason (“it was the photographers fault”) accept it and move on. She is Hannah Montana after all. We the society that Brooke Shields asked “What comes between me and Calvin Kleins?” and then went onto Princeton and now is a spokesperson for all things mother-positive. And didn’t Drew Barrymore weather her drug scandal well?

To say that this was anything other than a ethical publicity ploy would be hypocritical and you needn’t look further than the catwalks and editorial photography in fashion magazines. They are filled with teens. These are the teens that peer down from billboards, act in TV shows and commercials have the ability, rightly or wrongly,  to inspire girls as much as a Miley Cyrus does.

Fundamentally, I have a hard time believing that she did this against her will. I don’t believe she was misled in anyway. (Neither does Jamie Lee Curtis, apparently.) The result is an artistic image. The interpretation by its audience is the less wholesome thing.

The Miley Cyrus brand footprint was extended with a controversial and beautiful photo by a modern photography icon. She was vindicated by a seemingly heart-felt apology. She still works for Disney. Tell me, where is the downside?