12345

Tsarnaev makes cover of Rolling Stone - are you outraged? (Read 325 times)

    I don't know.  Is his record any good?

      Tsarnaev makes cover of Rolling Stone

       

      A little bit, but it's Rolling Stone so it's to be expected.   He's gonna buy five copies for his mother.  Damn, now the refrain from that song is stuck in my head.


      I'm back!

        Like the blow that'll gitcha when you get your picture
        On the cover of the Rollin' Stone...


        Needs more cowbell!

          Like the blow that'll gitcha when you get your picture
          On the cover of the Rollin' Stone...

           

          Crap...now I need to find that CD...

          Kirsten - aka "Auntie Kirsten"

          '14 Goals:

          • 2 olympic distance duathlons -- 6 days apart -- PR at least 1

          • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)

            The only thing that surprises me about this news story is that Rolling Stone Magazine is still in circulation.

              Somehow not offended. He wasn't  already famous, with his picture everywhere?

              cookiemonster


              Connoisseur of Cookies

                The only thing that surprises me about this news story is that Rolling Stone Magazine is still in circulation.

                 

                This.

                ***************************************************************************************

                 

                "C" is for cookie.  That's good enough for me.


                Needs more cowbell!

                  Kirsten - aka "Auntie Kirsten"

                  '14 Goals:

                  • 2 olympic distance duathlons -- 6 days apart -- PR at least 1

                  • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)

                  BIS


                  High Horse

                    *reaffirms

                    I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member ~ Groucho Marx.

                    ShuffleFaster


                      After Sandy Hook there was a good national conversation about not glamorizing the monsters. The public doesn't want to see it. Rolling Stone apparently missed that.

                       

                       

                      Yes, exactly.   Why feed the "monster" by giving him the platform he and his ilk desire.

                       

                      Let them wallow in their infamy and in their ill-conceived philosophies by refusing to spread them further.  Remove any possible incentive or inspiration to wannabe terrorists, by not adding to his name recognition.

                       

                      I say: let's have a speedy, fair trial in front of a jury of his peers, and then throw the book at him if found guilty.

                        It is a normal and mundane practice in journalism for people in the news, both good and bad, to appear on magazine covers.  For instance, Hitler appeared on Time magazine's cover several times, even as Time's "Man of the Year".  No one, to my knowledge, accused Time of  "making him out to be a rock star" or "giving him a platform".  And no one seemed appalled by Time's "obvious marketing strategy" of trying to provoke interest and sell copies by putting a murderous madman on its cover.  Instead, everyone yawned and realized that's just what magazines do.  And there are countless examples of bad guys and gals appearing on all sorts of magazine covers since (and before) then.

                         

                        For some reason, we've very recently become very thin skinned, PC and easily outraged about the issue.  So the whole "scandal" here seems very ahistorical, artificial and naïve to me.  Maybe 9/11 has terrified us all into completely losing our sense of perspective on these issues, but that doesn't strike me as a positive development.

                         

                        Finally, isn't it a bit superficial to condemn a magazine cover in advance of reading the story it is designed to solicit readers to read?  If the actual story (which no one even has read yet) turns out to be at all hagiographic or supports the alleged "rock star" treatment, then maybe the objectors have a point.  Otherwise it's just business as usual in the magazine industry.

                        Gator eye


                          I'm more interested in what goes on in Willie Nelson's bus Shocked

                            Finally, isn't it a bit superficial to condemn a magazine cover in advance of reading the story it is designed to solicit readers to read?

                             

                            Well as the mayor said, "There may be valuable journalism behind your sensational treatment, though we can’t know because almost all you released is the cover."

                             

                            I would not say I was outraged--but my very first impression was that it seems like a pathetic attention grab and a vain attempt to remain relevant.

                            Runners run.


                            Menace to Sobriety

                               

                              For some reason, we've very recently become very thin skinned, PC and easily outraged about the issue.  So the whole "scandal" here seems very ahistorical, artificial and naïve to me. 

                              +1

                              "Outraged" is something people chose to be or not.

                               

                               

                               

                              .

                              Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.
                              stshipley


                                After Sandy Hook there was a good national conversation about not glamorizing the monsters. The public doesn't want to see it. Rolling Stone apparently missed that.

                                 

                                As revolting as it is, it is a free country after all. Rolling Stone has a right to destroy what's left of its increasingly irrelevant publication.

                                 

                                This is especially true considering the monster in Sandy Hook is dead, and the monster of the Boston Bombings is still alive.

                                 

                                -STS

                                12345