Rolling Stone puts Boston bombing suspect on cover

VivaPalestina

Byrnzie wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Media outlets continue to ignore forensic psychiatrists who claim that publicity like this leads to future tragedies. They have every right to publish something like this, but need to understand the contribution they're making to the next mass killing.

I disagree. In the long run its like those who blame school shootings on marilyn manson and eminem, or the idea that ozzy or judas preist cause teens to commit suicide.

Ultimately our society is obsessed with violence and death. Always has been. And its a violent world. Look at the news. On any station. Or any newspaper. RS is no different than any newspaper in the world. They all glorify it. They all make money off it.

In the end its alot like what will happen with Trayvon. The media focuses on one thing for a few weeks, then moves on to the next tragedy. No effort is expended into seriously discussing issues about why. Or how we might prevent it.

In the end the media is just a mirror for what we are. Violence and blood obsessed.

RS is to blame but we all are. All of us. We parent these kids. We throw them by the wayside. We look the other way. We buy stuff that glorifies violence and war. We stand by and elect leaders who glorify these things.

And worst of all we make a mockery of the victims by dealing superficially with the problem. Im sorry, getting rid of gangsta rap, or mysogynostic and violent media, or getting someone off a cover of a magazine isnt really dealing with the issues.

We deal with it in this way because we dont want to change. Banning assault rifles is a step, but does it really get at the issue of WHY someone commits crimes? Clearly it doesnt.

Damn right. I wonder if there would have been the same amount of outrage and chest-beating if this picture and article had appeared in Time magazine instead?

Isn't the point of them choosing this particular photo of him - his Twitter profile picture - to highlight how someone so apparently assimilated into U.S culture could end up resorting to an act of terrorism?

Right. I think someone, I want to say Glenn Greenwald, but not sure, mentioned the real reason people are so upset about this cover is that he doesn't look like a bin laden type terrorist, he looks like an American kid. So the real outrage maybe over a stereotype being destroyed. I don't think people would have a problem if he fit the stereotype.

polaris_x

i heard on the radio this morning that RS put Charles Manson on the cover ... it was a top selling magazine and won RS an award for the piece ...

BinFrog

Yeah, how dare a popular magazine put a potential mass murderer on the cover

Jason P

they still make magazines? huh, who'd ah thunk it ...

chadwick

BinFrog wrote:

Yeah, how dare a popular magazine put a potential mass murderer on the cover

time magazine & rolling stone magazine are two seperate worlds are they not?

chadwick

peacefrompaul wrote:

I don't really give a shit

after thinking about it yesterday .....
i'm with peacepaul

i don't really give a fuck
i don't really give a shit

Godfather.

chadwick wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

I don't really give a shit

after thinking about it yesterday .....
i'm with peacepaul

i don't really give a fuck
i don't really give a shit

yup ! I havent spent a dime on that trash rag in a long time ...f*%&^ em' in the neck


Godfather.

BinFrog

chadwick wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

Yeah, how dare a popular magazine put a potential mass murderer on the cover

time magazine & rolling stone magazine are two seperate worlds are they not?

They're in the same exact world, with different focuses. They want to sell copies of their magazines. Both companies have meetings where they discuss possible cover stories. Both knew their respective covers would be controversial but would also make the news and thus raise awareness and in turn sell more copies.

I find this cover intriguing. Yes it's controversial, and yes it's somewhat tasteless. But let's not forget the world we live in. Dzokhar has been glamorized by the media, and there are fan sites and FB pages devoted to him by people who think he is gorgeous and demand he be set free. Never mind the evidence, some people are pathetic enough to think he was framed and he is really this gentle, loving soul. Why? I don't know. Is it because he is good looking, and has an innocent face? Is it because his name is mysterious? Who knows. It's pathetic, but this is the world we live in. Glamorizing serial killers is nothing new in our society. Name a serial killer and I guarantee there is someone out there writing them love letters in jail. Go watch Natural Born Killers. It's all too real.

This would be a non story if the stupid media would stop showing the cover over and over. They're trying to act like they are outraged and just reporting the story. No, that's not the case at all. They are giving the magazine a MUCH bigger audience than they would have had otherwise. Rolling Stone buyers are dwindling by the day. This issue will outsell anything they have put out in years.

And besides, apparently the story is VERY well written. Plus they do call him a monster right on the cover. The only thing bugging people is the fact that they are using a picture that clearly has a rock star/glamorized feel to it (this is Rolling Stone...). But it's not like they did a photo shoot.

Tom K

If Eddie Vedder liked Rolling Stone magazine.. would you like it too?

Tom K

You can read the article for free at www.rollingstone.com .. It's a really well written piece..

Byrnzie

America still has the death penalty, violence is glamorized and publicized every day in such things as cage fighting, and the movies, and war is considered routine and acceptable. Yet people start beating their chests and indulging in righteous indignation when the face of an alleged bomber is put on the cover of a magazine - despite being accompanied with a heading describing him as a monster. Maybe the reason people are acting so upset and outraged is because he doesn't look like a monster, and so their comfortable, self-serving stereotype of what a killer should look like is threatened and undermined?

i don't know. Maybe people are just full of shit.

BinFrog

Byrnzie wrote:

Maybe people are just full of shit.

Ding Ding.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Media outlets continue to ignore forensic psychiatrists who claim that publicity like this leads to future tragedies. They have every right to publish something like this, but need to understand the contribution they're making to the next mass killing.

I disagree. In the long run its like those who blame school shootings on marilyn manson and eminem, or the idea that ozzy or judas preist cause teens to commit suicide.

Ultimately our society is obsessed with violence and death. Always has been. And its a violent world. Look at the news. On any station. Or any newspaper. RS is no different than any newspaper in the world. They all glorify it. They all make money off it.

In the end its alot like what will happen with Trayvon. The media focuses on one thing for a few weeks, then moves on to the next tragedy. No effort is expended into seriously discussing issues about why. Or how we might prevent it.

In the end the media is just a mirror for what we are. Violence and blood obsessed.

RS is to blame but we all are. All of us. We parent these kids. We throw them by the wayside. We look the other way. We buy stuff that glorifies violence and war. We stand by and elect leaders who glorify these things.

And worst of all we make a mockery of the victims by dealing superficially with the problem. Im sorry, getting rid of gangsta rap, or mysogynostic and violent media, or getting someone off a cover of a magazine isnt really dealing with the issues.

We deal with it in this way because we dont want to change. Banning assault rifles is a step, but does it really get at the issue of WHY someone commits crimes? Clearly it doesnt.

Damn right. I wonder if there would have been the same amount of outrage and chest-beating if this picture and article had appeared in Time magazine instead?

Isn't the point of them choosing this particular photo of him - his Twitter profile picture - to highlight how someone so apparently assimilated into U.S culture could end up resorting to an act of terrorism?

Many, including myself, are not necessarily outraged as much as we are shaking our heads at the RS's tactic for selling their magazine. We expect Time and Macleans's to do pieces such as this, but to me... given the genre the RS dedicates itself to... this is no different than Sports Illustrated doing the story.

If people wish to shake their head at RS's obvious and cheap attempt at generating a buzz for themselves... then they are free to do it and not really out of line. Take shots at them all you want, but to argue that the RS covering the Boston Murderer is not a reach for the magazine would be weak. Should we expect a Ariel Castro cover next month? Even though it was still not really the material they typically cover, Charles Manson at least hung out with the Beach Boys, drew a vision from the White Album and recorded music. It wasn't as much a stretch as a punk bomber that needs to be erased from the earth- not glorified.

cincybearcat

chadwick wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

Yeah, how dare a popular magazine put a potential mass murderer on the cover

time magazine & rolling stone magazine are two seperate worlds are they not?

That is a stupid cover too.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

America still has the death penalty, violence is glamorized and publicized every day in such things as cage fighting, and the movies, and war is considered routine and acceptable. Yet people start beating their chests and indulging in righteous indignation when the face of an alleged bomber is put on the cover of a magazine - despite being accompanied with a heading describing him as a monster. Maybe the reason people are acting so upset and outraged is because he doesn't look like a monster, and so their comfortable, self-serving stereotype of what a killer should look like is threatened and undermined?

i don't know. Maybe people are just full of shit.[/]

Well I agree with you on some points. But I also agree with someone else who said some people aren't outraged, just a little shocked and disappointed.

There has to be a time when we stop glorifying these people. It's only part of the solution though.

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Many, including myself, are not necessarily outraged as much as we are shaking our heads at the RS's tactic for selling their magazine. We expect Time and Macleans's to do pieces such as this, but to me... given the genre the RS dedicates itself to... this is no different than Sports Illustrated doing the story.

If people wish to shake their head at RS's obvious and cheap attempt at generating a buzz for themselves... then they are free to do it and not really out of line. Take shots at them all you want, but to argue that the RS covering the Boston Murderer is not a reach for the magazine would be weak. Should we expect a Ariel Castro cover next month? Even though it was still not really the material they typically cover, Charles Manson at least hung out with the Beach Boys, drew a vision from the White Album and recorded music. It wasn't as much a stretch as a punk bomber that needs to be erased from the earth- not glorified.

RS does have a history of covering political and current events ... this is not a one-off ...

Tom K

polaris_x wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Many, including myself, are not necessarily outraged as much as we are shaking our heads at the RS's tactic for selling their magazine. We expect Time and Macleans's to do pieces such as this, but to me... given the genre the RS dedicates itself to... this is no different than Sports Illustrated doing the story.

If people wish to shake their head at RS's obvious and cheap attempt at generating a buzz for themselves... then they are free to do it and not really out of line. Take shots at them all you want, but to argue that the RS covering the Boston Murderer is not a reach for the magazine would be weak. Should we expect a Ariel Castro cover next month? Even though it was still not really the material they typically cover, Charles Manson at least hung out with the Beach Boys, drew a vision from the White Album and recorded music. It wasn't as much a stretch as a punk bomber that needs to be erased from the earth- not glorified.

RS does have a history of covering political and current events ... this is not a one-off ...

But Pearl Jam fans don't read RS because Eddie doesn't like it.. so they wouldn't understand this... I enjoy these people who are boycotting it who have never even picked up the magazine..

cincybearcat

Tom K wrote:

But Pearl Jam fans don't read RS because Eddie doesn't like it.. so they wouldn't understand this... I enjoy these people who are boycotting it who have never even picked up the magazine..

I started my Rolling Stone boycott several years ago, mostly because it sucks as a magazine. But not because Eddie doesn't like it.

Tom K

cincybearcat wrote:

Tom K wrote:

But Pearl Jam fans don't read RS because Eddie doesn't like it.. so they wouldn't understand this... I enjoy these people who are boycotting it who have never even picked up the magazine..

I started my Rolling Stone boycott several years ago, mostly because it sucks as a magazine. But not because Eddie doesn't like it.

well you are clear then.. but no one else gets a pass....

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Many, including myself, are not necessarily outraged as much as we are shaking our heads at the RS's tactic for selling their magazine. We expect Time and Macleans's to do pieces such as this, but to me... given the genre the RS dedicates itself to... this is no different than Sports Illustrated doing the story.

If people wish to shake their head at RS's obvious and cheap attempt at generating a buzz for themselves... then they are free to do it and not really out of line. Take shots at them all you want, but to argue that the RS covering the Boston Murderer is not a reach for the magazine would be weak. Should we expect a Ariel Castro cover next month? Even though it was still not really the material they typically cover, Charles Manson at least hung out with the Beach Boys, drew a vision from the White Album and recorded music. It wasn't as much a stretch as a punk bomber that needs to be erased from the earth- not glorified.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but every copy of the magazine I've read over the past 10 or so years has featured a section relating to politics and/or current affairs. Therefore, the piece on the Boston bombings doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary.