12345

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

    Saw pictures of the cover on CNN. The 24 hour news channels are distributing the image at least as widely as Rolling Stone would -- in the name of outrage against publicizing and glamorizing this dolt.

     

    Just goes to show the value of outrage and anger as problem-solving emotions.

     

    Good point.  Most of us wouldn't have ever seen the RS cover if the other media hadn't propagated it.

    Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

      Saw pictures of the cover on CNN. The 24 hour news channels are distributing the image at least as widely as Rolling Stone would -- in the name of outrage against publicizing and glamorizing this dolt.

       

      Just goes to show the value of outrage and anger as problem-solving emotions.

       

      Not to mention the fact that they (the mainstream cable news outlets) broadcast the same and similar images of Tsnarnaev over and over again on a nearly 24/7 basis during the weeks that followed the Boston bombings.  So now they've trying to whip their viewers up into a fever pitch of manufactured "outrage" against RS for using one of those images on the cover of its magazine?  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

        Saw pictures of the cover on CNN. The 24 hour news channels are distributing the image at least as widely as Rolling Stone would -- in the name of outrage against publicizing and glamorizing this dolt.

         

        Just goes to show the value of outrage and anger as problem-solving emotions.

        Yes, yes, yes.  The outrage/boycotting/etc. also gives Rolling Stone exactly what it wants -- free advertising! -- and just encourages this sort of thing.

         

        Personally, I have mixed feelings about whether it was appropriate to put the picture on the cover.  I get the objections, but when you famously do terrible things, you probably end up famous whether we want that to be true or not.  Should we not have put pictures of Osama bin Laden on the cover of magazines?  He was a bigger publicity seeker than Tsarnaev.  I think it is also easier to keep terrible people from becoming famous when they die doing the terrible thing, e.g., Newtown.  The people who actually hijacked the planes on 9/11 also aren't exactly household names.  Tsarnaev is still alive and facing charges, so it's much more of an ongoing thing.

          I get the objections, but when you famously do terrible things, you probably end up famous whether we want that to be true or not.  Should we not have put pictures of Osama bin Laden on the cover of magazines?  He was a bigger publicity seeker than Tsarnaev.  I think it is also easier to keep terrible people from becoming famous when they die doing the terrible thing, e.g., Newtown.  The people who actually hijacked the planes on 9/11 also aren't exactly household names.  Tsarnaev is still alive and facing charges, so it's much more of an ongoing thing.

           

          You are confusing famous with infamous.  When people become well known for terrible deeds, they are infamous.  Famous generally has a positive connotation.

            Just goes to show the value of outrage and anger as problem-solving emotions.

             

            The media and politicians have a long history of using outrage and anger to further an agenda.  Sandy Hook was used to promote gun control and the current outrage at the George Zimmerman verdict is being used to incite racial hatred and violence.


            A Dance with Monkeys

              The Rolling Stones are still around?


              They have a magazine?


              Wow. Who knew.

                 

                The media and politicians have a long history of using outrage and anger to further an agenda.  Sandy Hook was used to promote gun control and the current outrage at the George Zimmerman verdict is being used to incite racial hatred and violence.

                 

                True -- and it can just as easily be said that Sandy Hook was used to promote a backlash against gun control and that the Zimmerman verdict is being used to perpetuate ignorance and racism. Smile

                   

                  it can just as easily be said that Sandy Hook was used to promote a backlash against gun control

                  That doesn't make much sense to me.  The backlash was in response to the gun control proposals, not the Sandy Hook tragedy.  However, the over-the-top response by the NRA proposing to put armed guards at every school could be characterized that way.

                   

                   

                  and that the Zimmerman verdict is being used to perpetuate ignorance and racism. Smile

                  I think this is pretty close to what I stated, but I am sure you meant it in a different way.

                    Just thought it was weird that you were turning my comments about 24 hour news into a chance to inject some right-wing slanted points. I shouldn't have responded really with left interpretations -- that's exactly the sort of response that feeds outrage and stupidity, so my bad.

                      People generally manage to spin events to support their POV, but what this is really about is spinning events to make money for media outlets.

                      Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                        Just thought it was weird that you were turning my comments about 24 hour news into a chance to inject some right-wing slanted points. I shouldn't have responded really with left interpretations -- that's exactly the sort of response that feeds outrage and stupidity, so my bad.

                         

                        I apologize for the right wing slant then.  I was responding to your statement about using anger and outrage as a problem solving tool, which is the bread and butter for politicians an political activists and not just the media.  I should have made the point without letting my political bias color my words.

                          The Rolling Stones are still around?


                          They have a magazine?


                          Wow. Who knew.

                           

                          By the name of the magazine, I thought it was about how to avoid getting moss on rocks.

                            How does it FEEEEAAL?

                            ShuffleFaster


                              I'm curious what people think of the article

                               

                              In case you missed it:    http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717

                              Runner Mike


                                Nope not one bit. If you were one of he 180 or so who were DIRECTLY affected, I could see why they might be upset.  But really everyone else is just feeding his "fame" as much as the cover it.

                                12345