Rolling Stone puts Boston bombing suspect on cover

musicismylife78

supergrass wrote:

The uproar over this cover is absurd. His photo has appeared on hundreds of newspapers across the country. Time ran smiling school photos of the Columbine killers and nary a whine was heard, not to mention a cover shot of the killing spree. Most people are only upset about it because they were told they should be or because they have a perception of what Rolling Stone should be.

Beyond that, the story is a portrait of a killer and it's certainly worth trying to understand those who are committing these heinous crimes. It's clearly not glorifying a kid they call "a monster."

This reaction is why our political system is broken: "You view the world differently than me, so you're stupid." If you don't like the image or the story, don't buy the magazine. Don't buy it ever again if you feel that way. But don't pass judgment on what Rolling Stone has the right to publish simply because you think it's in bad taste.

Agree 100 percent. And thats the whole point. The same people who are outraged over the cover, will be the same people who buy Time the next time some great tragedy happens, or they will watch an hour of nightly news where every story covered is about how violent the world is. We are all to blame for it. Its a symptom of living in society. Or a reality.

To me, we have WAY more important things to debate and actually get down and dirty and deal with, than some magazine cover. We spend so much energy on these things, things that really dont matter. You actually realize their was a commision that Hillary and Gore sat on for years that tried to ban nudity and violence in video games and music videos? I mean, really? Thats effective use of time?

Jason P

This link is the real photo they should have had on the cover. It's not too graphic, at least in comparison of what he did and we saw, but I'll leave it up to you to follow the link.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/

25 year vet of the police force will probably lose his job for leaking this.

“As a professional law-enforcement officer of 25 years, I believe that the image that was portrayed by Rolling Stone magazine was an insult to any person who has every worn a uniform of any color or any police organization or military branch, and the family members who have ever lost a loved one serving in the line of duty. The truth is that glamorizing the face of terror is not just insulting to the family members of those killed in the line of duty, it also could be an incentive to those who may be unstable to do something to get their face on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

“I hope that the people who see these images will know that this was real. It was as real as it gets. This may have played out as a television show, but this was not a television show. Officer Dick Donohue almost gave his life. Officer Sean Collier did give his life. These were real people, with real lives, with real families. And to have this cover dropped into Boston was hurtful to their memories and their families. I know from first-hand conversations that this Rolling Stone cover has kept many of them up—again. It’s irritated the wounds that will never heal—again. There is nothing glamorous in bringing more pain to a grieving family.

“Photography is very simple, it’s very basic. It brings us back to the cave. An image like this on the cover of Rolling Stone, we see it instantly as being wrong. What Rolling Stone did was wrong. This guy is evil. This is the real Boston bomber. Not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.”

kenny olav

I don't hear many people saying that Rolling Stone shouldn't be allowed to use the image for their cover. I'm certainly not saying that. So it's not a censorship issue. It's a taste issue. It's a respect issue. If you were a RS editor, would you decide you use this image of the bomber if family of those were who killed or if the victims who've had their legs blown off were there in the room with you? I strongly doubt it.

Here's an updated list of retailers who have decided not to sell this issue of Rolling Stone:

CVS
Walgreens
BJ's
Roche Bros Supermarkets
Stop & Shop
Rite Aid
Tedeschi
Cumberland Farms
Shaw's Star Market
Wal-Mart (we really need verification on this, is this ONLY in Boston?)
Hannaford
Kmart
Big Y
Whole Foods (MA only unless you guys know otherwise)
Giant Foods
Hy-Vee
Market Basket
7-Eleven (company operated stores, they are urging franchisees to do the same)
Target (Greater Boston Area only)
Wegmans
H-E-B
Marc's Grocery (OH)
Coburns (MN)
A Fresh Market (Western States)
UMASS Dartmouth Campus store
Harris Teeter
United/Market Street/Amigo Supermarkets
Lowe’s Foods
Schoolkids Records-Raleigh, NC
Raley’s Grocery –CA
King Kullen-NY
Kum & Go- IA
Lori’s Gifts (in over 300 hospitals nationwide)
Dave’s Marketplace
Boston College
Honey Farms
Bud’s Shop ‘n Save
Giant Eagle-PA
Dave’s Marketplace
Rouse’s
Rutters Convenience Stores-PA
Michael’s Creative Bakery @Center News Café
Crimson Corner
Out of Town News-Harvard Square

aerial

musicismylife78 wrote:

the manson issue is wildly different. No one looks at the Boston bomber as a hero. In 1969 Manson was viewed as a hero by the counterculture. I believe that very RS issue has the quote from Jerry Rubin about Manson being "our cherubic face". Joni Mitchell wrote a song in favor of him. Neil young sent him a motorcycle and even wrote from mansons perspective in Revolution Blues. Around that time you had the Weathermen bubbling up and SDS's ranks breaking. With a "lets do the same old protest" and then "lets cause the revolution" being warring factions in the antiwar movement. One of the more famous was a SDS ballroom convention with huge posters on the wall with bullets attached to the names of Nixon, Agnew, Reagan and Tate. Speeches were given where where hand signals representing forks and knives and statements like "they killed them with forks and knives, dig it" were made.

Clearly RS isnt advocating this. And clearly youth culture doesnt view the Boston Bomber in the way our parents generation viewed Manson. The guy isnt viewed as a symbol for a youth culture.

Yeah RS is profiting off the tragedy, but so did Newsweek, Time, the nightly news, Fox, CNN, ABC, etc... You dont have to put that guy on the cover to profit off and exploit the tragedy. RS is a scapegoat for the larger media apparatus and for society at large. We are obsessed with violence, crime, war and death.

We should treat all media outlets the same. They all are peddlers of garbage. They dont care about the victims or the tragedies. They care about ratings. Doing something about this cover photo does nothing to address the larger issues and topics at play here

The media is run by the hippie generation....it's strange how they turned into the same people they hated and wanted to blow up.
Their also running this country....into the ground
Weathermen... Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.



Cover of The Rolling Stone
by Dr. Hook

Well, we're big rock singers
We got golden fingers
and we're loved everywhere we go
(That sounds like us)
We sing about beauty
and we sing about truth
at ten-thousand dollars a show (Right)
We take all kinds of pills
that give us all kind of thrills
but the thrill we'll never know
Is the thrill that'll getcha
when you get your picture
on the cover of the Rollin Stone

(Rollin' Stone)
Wanna see my picture on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for my mother (Yes) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
(That's a very, very good idea)

I got a freaky ole lady
name a cocaine Katy
who embroideries on my jeans
I got my poor ole grey haired daddy
drivin' my limousine
Now it's all designed to blow our minds
but our minds won't really be blown
Like the blow that'll getcha
when you get your picture
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone

(Rollin' stone)
Wanna see our pictures on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for our mothers (Yeah) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
Hey (Sure enough)

I know how, rock and roll
Ah, that's beautiful
We got a lot of little teenage
blue eyed groupies who do anything we say
We got a genuine Indian Guru
who's teaching us a better way
We got all the friends that money can buy
so we never have to be alone (No)
And we keep getting richer
but we can't get our picture
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone

(Rollin' Stone)
Wanna see my picture on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for my mother (I want one) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
On the cover of the Rollin'… (Stone (And us))
Wanna see my picture on the cover
(I don't know why we ain't on the cover, baby)
(Stone) Wanna buy five copies for my mother
(We're beautiful fellows) (Stone)
Wanna see my smilin' face
On the cover of the Rollin Stone

(spoken)
I ain't kiddin' ya
we would make a beautiful cover
Fresh shot, right up front man
I can see it now, we'd be on the front, smilin' man Aah, beautiful

musicismylife78

aerial wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

the manson issue is wildly different. No one looks at the Boston bomber as a hero. In 1969 Manson was viewed as a hero by the counterculture. I believe that very RS issue has the quote from Jerry Rubin about Manson being "our cherubic face". Joni Mitchell wrote a song in favor of him. Neil young sent him a motorcycle and even wrote from mansons perspective in Revolution Blues. Around that time you had the Weathermen bubbling up and SDS's ranks breaking. With a "lets do the same old protest" and then "lets cause the revolution" being warring factions in the antiwar movement. One of the more famous was a SDS ballroom convention with huge posters on the wall with bullets attached to the names of Nixon, Agnew, Reagan and Tate. Speeches were given where where hand signals representing forks and knives and statements like "they killed them with forks and knives, dig it" were made.

Clearly RS isnt advocating this. And clearly youth culture doesnt view the Boston Bomber in the way our parents generation viewed Manson. The guy isnt viewed as a symbol for a youth culture.

Yeah RS is profiting off the tragedy, but so did Newsweek, Time, the nightly news, Fox, CNN, ABC, etc... You dont have to put that guy on the cover to profit off and exploit the tragedy. RS is a scapegoat for the larger media apparatus and for society at large. We are obsessed with violence, crime, war and death.

We should treat all media outlets the same. They all are peddlers of garbage. They dont care about the victims or the tragedies. They care about ratings. Doing something about this cover photo does nothing to address the larger issues and topics at play here

The media is run by the hippie generation....it's strange how they turned into the same people they hated and wanted to blow up.
Their also running this country....into the ground
Weathermen... Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.



Cover of The Rolling Stone
by Dr. Hook

Well, we're big rock singers
We got golden fingers
and we're loved everywhere we go
(That sounds like us)
We sing about beauty
and we sing about truth
at ten-thousand dollars a show (Right)
We take all kinds of pills
that give us all kind of thrills
but the thrill we'll never know
Is the thrill that'll getcha
when you get your picture
on the cover of the Rollin Stone

(Rollin' Stone)
Wanna see my picture on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for my mother (Yes) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
(That's a very, very good idea)

I got a freaky ole lady
name a cocaine Katy
who embroideries on my jeans
I got my poor ole grey haired daddy
drivin' my limousine
Now it's all designed to blow our minds
but our minds won't really be blown
Like the blow that'll getcha
when you get your picture
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone

(Rollin' stone)
Wanna see our pictures on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for our mothers (Yeah) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
Hey (Sure enough)

I know how, rock and roll
Ah, that's beautiful
We got a lot of little teenage
blue eyed groupies who do anything we say
We got a genuine Indian Guru
who's teaching us a better way
We got all the friends that money can buy
so we never have to be alone (No)
And we keep getting richer
but we can't get our picture
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone

(Rollin' Stone)
Wanna see my picture on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for my mother (I want one) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
On the cover of the Rollin'… (Stone (And us))
Wanna see my picture on the cover
(I don't know why we ain't on the cover, baby)
(Stone) Wanna buy five copies for my mother
(We're beautiful fellows) (Stone)
Wanna see my smilin' face
On the cover of the Rollin Stone

(spoken)
I ain't kiddin' ya
we would make a beautiful cover
Fresh shot, right up front man
I can see it now, we'd be on the front, smilin' man Aah, beautiful

Couldnt agree more. Such a relief to hear someone say this. My parents and I get in fights because I say the same thing. The whole hippie generation was about changing things. Im as radical as the weathermen and the black panthers and all that stuff. And my parents generation, those in charge, those running things, are all about as middle of the road and non radical as one could get.

its funny my parents dont see the parrallels. The whole hippie generation railed against our grandparents for supporting vietnam and for living ridiculous lives. And now, we are in their place and discussing the same issues.

Those in office are our parents age.

Its ridiculous

Moonpig

aerial wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

the manson issue is wildly different. No one looks at the Boston bomber as a hero. In 1969 Manson was viewed as a hero by the counterculture. I believe that very RS issue has the quote from Jerry Rubin about Manson being "our cherubic face". Joni Mitchell wrote a song in favor of him. Neil young sent him a motorcycle and even wrote from mansons perspective in Revolution Blues. Around that time you had the Weathermen bubbling up and SDS's ranks breaking. With a "lets do the same old protest" and then "lets cause the revolution" being warring factions in the antiwar movement. One of the more famous was a SDS ballroom convention with huge posters on the wall with bullets attached to the names of Nixon, Agnew, Reagan and Tate. Speeches were given where where hand signals representing forks and knives and statements like "they killed them with forks and knives, dig it" were made.

Clearly RS isnt advocating this. And clearly youth culture doesnt view the Boston Bomber in the way our parents generation viewed Manson. The guy isnt viewed as a symbol for a youth culture.

Yeah RS is profiting off the tragedy, but so did Newsweek, Time, the nightly news, Fox, CNN, ABC, etc... You dont have to put that guy on the cover to profit off and exploit the tragedy. RS is a scapegoat for the larger media apparatus and for society at large. We are obsessed with violence, crime, war and death.

We should treat all media outlets the same. They all are peddlers of garbage. They dont care about the victims or the tragedies. They care about ratings. Doing something about this cover photo does nothing to address the larger issues and topics at play here

The media is run by the hippie generation....it's strange how they turned into the same people they hated and wanted to blow up.
Their also running this country....into the ground
Weathermen... Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.



Cover of The Rolling Stone
by Dr. Hook

Well, we're big rock singers
We got golden fingers
and we're loved everywhere we go
(That sounds like us)
We sing about beauty
and we sing about truth
at ten-thousand dollars a show (Right)
We take all kinds of pills
that give us all kind of thrills
but the thrill we'll never know
Is the thrill that'll getcha
when you get your picture
on the cover of the Rollin Stone

(Rollin' Stone)
Wanna see my picture on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for my mother (Yes) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
(That's a very, very good idea)

I got a freaky ole lady
name a cocaine Katy
who embroideries on my jeans
I got my poor ole grey haired daddy
drivin' my limousine
Now it's all designed to blow our minds
but our minds won't really be blown
Like the blow that'll getcha
when you get your picture
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone

(Rollin' stone)
Wanna see our pictures on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for our mothers (Yeah) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
Hey (Sure enough)

I know how, rock and roll
Ah, that's beautiful
We got a lot of little teenage
blue eyed groupies who do anything we say
We got a genuine Indian Guru
who's teaching us a better way
We got all the friends that money can buy
so we never have to be alone (No)
And we keep getting richer
but we can't get our picture
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone

(Rollin' Stone)
Wanna see my picture on the cover (Stone)
Wanna buy five copies for my mother (I want one) (Stone) Wanna see my smilin' face
on the cover of the Rollin' Stone
On the cover of the Rollin'… (Stone (And us))
Wanna see my picture on the cover
(I don't know why we ain't on the cover, baby)
(Stone) Wanna buy five copies for my mother
(We're beautiful fellows) (Stone)
Wanna see my smilin' face
On the cover of the Rollin Stone

(spoken)
I ain't kiddin' ya
we would make a beautiful cover
Fresh shot, right up front man
I can see it now, we'd be on the front, smilin' man Aah, beautiful

Ho......... Ly shit

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

The media is run by the hippie generation....

No it isn't.

Not everybody supported the Counter Culture during the 1960's.

musicismylife78

Byrnzie wrote:

aerial wrote:

The media is run by the hippie generation....

No it isn't.

Not everybody supported the Counter Culture during the 1960's.

actually it is. The hippie generation is a term that encompasses everyone. Baby Boomers. And generally, as I said, I dont know too many 20 somethings who are senators, congresspeople, or president. Not too many 20 year olds own corporations or large buisnesses. Certainly the major companies are all run by people with gray hair.

I can pretty much guarantee of the 5 companies that run the media, all of them are headed by boomers.

RW81233

ummm...so did anyone actually read the article?

backseatLover12

musicismylife78 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

aerial wrote:

The media is run by the hippie generation....

No it isn't.

Not everybody supported the Counter Culture during the 1960's.

actually it is. The hippie generation is a term that encompasses everyone. Baby Boomers. And generally, as I said, I dont know too many 20 somethings who are senators, congresspeople, or president. Not too many 20 year olds own corporations or large buisnesses. Certainly the major companies are all run by people with gray hair.

I can pretty much guarantee of the 5 companies that run the media, all of them are headed by boomers.

The media is not run by a culture or age bracket. It's run and controlled by the government.

...and Rupert Murdoch is 82 years old. NOT a Baby boomer, AND the most powerful media magnate (and bullshit con artist asshole) in the world.

backseatLover12

Not to mention... Rolling Stone is a Political and current events magazine, not simply a music mag. Duh people! Getting your panties in a bunch about something so stupid is feeding into the government's lap of being classily distracted from real issues with trivial, bullshit ones.

musicismylife78

actually it is. The hippie generation is a term that encompasses everyone. Baby Boomers. And generally, as I said, I dont know too many 20 somethings who are senators, congresspeople, or president. Not too many 20 year olds own corporations or large buisnesses. Certainly the major companies are all run by people with gray hair.

I can pretty much guarantee of the 5 companies that run the media, all of them are headed by boomers.[/quote]

The media is not run by a culture or age bracket. It's run and controlled by the government.

...and Rupert Murdoch is 82 years old. NOT a Baby boomer, AND the most powerful media magnate (and bullshit con artist asshole) in the world.[/quote]

Nah. You can make general statements. Obama, Bush, Clinton. are all boomers. Senators, congresspeople, and those in office are all of similar ages. The boomers are also those people who have seniority in all jobs. That guy or gal who's been at that job for 30 plus years, and is the reason we can't get in the door, thats all the boomers too.

Plus, all you have to do, is average the age of all the politicians in the U.S., and those who control the 5 major conglomerates. I guarantee you the average age aint gonna be 20.

Jann Wenner is a Boomer. So is the staff at RS. So essentially any other argument is ridiculous. RS is verifiably a Boomer magazine, blatantly so.

I also think its inaccurate to say the media is run and controlled by the government. They work symbiotically, which shouldnt happen, the media does the government and politicians bidding. And the politicians feed into it. People are making decisions for sure, but I guarantee you it isnt the senator from Colorado. They dont have to. The media is completely inept and a bunch of idiots. Just like every politician.

The government doesnt have to control it. The media moves lock step with the politicians.

Plus its just general basic common sense. Our parents are the boomers. Our grandparents, if still alive are 80-90-100 even. Obviously they arent going to be running corporations or be politicians. Murdoch is the exception. So that leaves the people who are in power. Those peoples children. Our parents, the boomers.

Not sure why this is hard to understand

backseatLover12

musicismylife78 wrote:

actually it is. The hippie generation is a term that encompasses everyone. Baby Boomers. And generally, as I said, I dont know too many 20 somethings who are senators, congresspeople, or president. Not too many 20 year olds own corporations or large buisnesses. Certainly the major companies are all run by people with gray hair.

I can pretty much guarantee of the 5 companies that run the media, all of them are headed by boomers.

The media is not run by a culture or age bracket. It's run and controlled by the government.

...and Rupert Murdoch is 82 years old. NOT a Baby boomer, AND the most powerful media magnate (and bullshit con artist asshole) in the world.[/quote]

Nah. You can make general statements. Obama, Bush, Clinton. are all boomers. Senators, congresspeople, and those in office are all of similar ages. The boomers are also those people who have seniority in all jobs. That guy or gal who's been at that job for 30 plus years, and is the reason we can't get in the door, thats all the boomers too.

Plus, all you have to do, is average the age of all the politicians in the U.S., and those who control the 5 major conglomerates. I guarantee you the average age aint gonna be 20.

Jann Wenner is a Boomer. So is the staff at RS. So essentially any other argument is ridiculous. RS is verifiably a Boomer magazine, blatantly so.

I also think its inaccurate to say the media is run and controlled by the government. They work symbiotically, which shouldnt happen, the media does the government and politicians bidding. And the politicians feed into it. People are making decisions for sure, but I guarantee you it isnt the senator from Colorado. They dont have to. The media is completely inept and a bunch of idiots. Just like every politician.

The government doesnt have to control it. The media moves lock step with the politicians.

Plus its just general basic common sense. Our parents are the boomers. Our grandparents, if still alive are 80-90-100 even. Obviously they arent going to be running corporations or be politicians. Murdoch is the exception. So that leaves the people who are in power. Those peoples children. Our parents, the boomers.

Not sure why this is hard to understand. [/quote]

Old white men are those in power, not the general boomer generation. You would have to include women and minorities if you think it's simply a generation, and puleeze, we all know that they aren't included there...

The media is PRIVATElY OWNED, not publicly owned, and with it's six single owners in bed with the government, you can bet who runs the show. Don't be fooled.

musicismylife78

Yeah but its a choice. You implied the media is forced to do things. They arent. They choose to take bribes and essentially are prostitutes. But theres no command on high from the gov't to focus on something and not focus on another. And if there is the media doesnt have a gun to its head. It chooses to focus on the Tour De France and The British Open and not the drones Obama drops on other countries. They arent forced to do it. They get paid to do it. As I said the relationship between the media and the gov't is symbiotic. It isnt one way or the other. They both work together and both do each others bidding. The media isnt forced into doing or not doing anything.

Again, the media chooses to focus on what it focuses on. When it refuses to cover the death in the war, thats their choice, obviously an obscene one. But no one in the gov't or anywhere else is making them do that

. To imply Brian Williams is forced to cover something also is a cop out because it neglects the medias free will in the matter. And it also politely sweeps our role as citizens, under the rug.

And further, Old white men I agree with that. But old white men of a certain age. Its simple. You speak about these people like they are some nebulous creatures. And cite a single 82 year old. You can make general statements about anything, if you have the facts. We know the ages of those in power, those who own companies, those who hold office. Thus we can make statements about the age and the generation those people represent.

These arent nebulous people. We know Jann's age, we know his staff's age. We absolutely can make statements about generations.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

musicismylife78 wrote:

Yeah but its a choice. You implied the media is forced to do things. They arent. They choose to take bribes and essentially are prostitutes. But theres no command on high from the gov't to focus on something and not focus on another. And if there is the media doesnt have a gun to its head. It chooses to focus on the Tour De France and The British Open and not the drones Obama drops on other countries. They arent forced to do it. They get paid to do it. As I said the relationship between the media and the gov't is symbiotic. It isnt one way or the other. They both work together and both do each others bidding. The media isnt forced into doing or not doing anything.

Again, the media chooses to focus on what it focuses on. When it refuses to cover the death in the war, thats their choice, obviously an obscene one. But no one in the gov't or anywhere else is making them do that

. To imply Brian Williams is forced to cover something also is a cop out because it neglects the medias free will in the matter. And it also politely sweeps our role as citizens, under the rug.

And further, Old white men I agree with that. But old white men of a certain age. Its simple. You speak about these people like they are some nebulous creatures. And cite a single 82 year old. You can make general statements about anything, if you have the facts. We know the ages of those in power, those who own companies, those who hold office. Thus we can make statements about the age and the generation those people represent.

These arent nebulous people. We know Jann's age, we know his staff's age. We absolutely can make statements about generations.

Let's not forget the other variable in this equation: the media caters to the interests of the people. While there are media sources that tell tales they are paid to tell, in general, mainstream media covers the events that appeal to the public. Our vicarious nature makes as guilty as anyone for what we usually see in the media (yes... a Tool reference).

I still think the Rolling Stone cover was an obvious attempt to simply sell magazines and stir up controversy to promote their magazine. Let's at least acknowledge this fact. This was not 'responsible journalism' in the typical sense. This was marketing.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Let's not forget the other variable in this equation: the media caters to the interests of the people. While there are media sources that tell tales they are paid to tell, in general, mainstream media covers the events that appeal to the public. Our vicarious nature makes as guilty as anyone for what we usually see in the media (yes... a Tool reference).

I still think the Rolling Stone cover was an obvious attempt to simply sell magazines and stir up controversy to promote their magazine. Let's at least acknowledge this fact. This was not 'responsible journalism' in the typical sense. This was marketing.

Their biggest concern is pleasing advertisers, not their readers. The public is largely treated with contempt by the mainstream media. Advertising makes up nearly 40% of most newspapers.

Byrnzie

musicismylife78 wrote:

The media isnt forced into doing or not doing anything.

Of course they aren't.


http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/08/nyti-a22.html
A damning admission: New York Times concealed NSA spying until after 2004 election
By David Walsh and Barry Grey
22 August 2006

A column by New York Times public editor Byron Calame August 13 reveals that the newspaper withheld a story about the Bush administration’s program of illegal domestic spying until after the 2004 election, and then lied about it.

On December 16, 2005, the Times reported that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor thousands of telephone conversations and e-mails in the US without court approval. At the time, the Times acknowledged that it had, at the urging of the Bush administration, withheld publication of the story, saying it held its exposé back “for a year.” This time frame suggested that the newspaper made the decision to withhold publication of the story after the 2004 presidential election.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/fe ... city-drone

US newspapers accused of complicity as drone report reopens security debate

New York Times and Washington Post knew about secret drone base in Saudi Arabia but agreed not to disclose it to the public


Karen McVeigh
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 6 February 2013

US news organisations are facing accusations of complicity after it emerged that they bowed to pressure from the Obama administration not to disclose the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia despite knowing about it for a year.

Amid renewed scrutiny over the Obama administration's secrecy over its targeted killing programme, media analysts and national security experts said the revelation that some newspapers had co-operated over the drone base had reopened the debate over the balance between freedom of information and national security.

On Tuesday, following Monday's disclosure by NBC of a leaked Justice Department white paper on the case for its controversial targeted killing programme, the Washington Post revealed it had previously refrained from publishing the base's location at the behest of the Obama administration over national security concerns.

The New York Times followed with its own story on the drone programme on Wednesday, and an op-ed explaining why it felt the time to publish was now.

One expert described the initial decision not to publish the base's location as "shameful and craven".

musicismylife78

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

Yeah but its a choice. You implied the media is forced to do things. They arent. They choose to take bribes and essentially are prostitutes. But theres no command on high from the gov't to focus on something and not focus on another. And if there is the media doesnt have a gun to its head. It chooses to focus on the Tour De France and The British Open and not the drones Obama drops on other countries. They arent forced to do it. They get paid to do it. As I said the relationship between the media and the gov't is symbiotic. It isnt one way or the other. They both work together and both do each others bidding. The media isnt forced into doing or not doing anything.

Again, the media chooses to focus on what it focuses on. When it refuses to cover the death in the war, thats their choice, obviously an obscene one. But no one in the gov't or anywhere else is making them do that

. To imply Brian Williams is forced to cover something also is a cop out because it neglects the medias free will in the matter. And it also politely sweeps our role as citizens, under the rug.

And further, Old white men I agree with that. But old white men of a certain age. Its simple. You speak about these people like they are some nebulous creatures. And cite a single 82 year old. You can make general statements about anything, if you have the facts. We know the ages of those in power, those who own companies, those who hold office. Thus we can make statements about the age and the generation those people represent.

These arent nebulous people. We know Jann's age, we know his staff's age. We absolutely can make statements about generations.

Let's not forget the other variable in this equation: the media caters to the interests of the people. While there are media sources that tell tales they are paid to tell, in general, mainstream media covers the events that appeal to the public. Our vicarious nature makes as guilty as anyone for what we usually see in the media (yes... a Tool reference).

I still think the Rolling Stone cover was an obvious attempt to simply sell magazines and stir up controversy to promote their magazine. Let's at least acknowledge this fact. This was not 'responsible journalism' in the typical sense. This was marketing.

Thats obvious. Im jsut not seeing why RS deserves such attention and outrage and its own thread devoted to "lets attack them with pitchforks" type nonsense, when as Byrnzie pointed out, the ENTIRE media infrastructure is built on this. You think the WaPost and CNN and Fox and ABC and all those outlets actually care about us, and are interested in educating us? All of it is money and power related. Watch during the election season. You can't score a big interview with Mccain and Obama if you ask them about drone attacks and war crimes.

we get the media we deserve. Im all for outrage. But lets be realistic. This is systemic. Like all political and societal issues. Its pollyanna to want to believe attacking one magazines going to solve the problem of a spineless, corrupt and outright disturbing media paradigm.

Lets face it, to change the paradigm its gonna take alot more than removing one magazine cover. Im not into reformist or electoral politics. Thats boring and does nothing. Im a radical, into revolutuonary and radical activism,

The bigger issue is media conglomerates, a media that is in lock step with every politician, a media that covers TMZ as opposed to Afghanistan and drones, and a world obsessed with blood and violence and one thats obscenely ignorant to humans destriction of the world.

If we are going to do something, make it something worthwhile. Electoral politics does nothing. At all

musicismylife78

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Let's not forget the other variable in this equation: the media caters to the interests of the people. While there are media sources that tell tales they are paid to tell, in general, mainstream media covers the events that appeal to the public. Our vicarious nature makes as guilty as anyone for what we usually see in the media (yes... a Tool reference).

I still think the Rolling Stone cover was an obvious attempt to simply sell magazines and stir up controversy to promote their magazine. Let's at least acknowledge this fact. This was not 'responsible journalism' in the typical sense. This was marketing.

Their biggest concern is pleasing advertisers, not their readers. The public is largely treated with contempt by the mainstream media. Advertising makes up nearly 40% of most newspapers.

You seem to be speaking the truth in here more so than anyone else. But you grossly underestimate the media's contempt for the public. Id say 95 to 99 percent of the media doesnt give a damn. Its not "largely", its "almost without exception" and "the near total amount of media outlets".

You have Democracy now, and a bunch of left wing blogs. Thats about it. None have the visibilty of a Wa Post or NY Times or CNN or Fox.

Look at their record during the bush years. How many of the media outlets reported on anything? How many media outlets today hammer Obama daiily abour war crimes, nsa spying, gitmo, and drones? I cant think of a single one. The conversation is merely abstract discussion. Its never ppointing out the obvious hand Obama plays in it, as does every senator and congressperson in office.

The reporters should be up in obamas face every single day, demanding he justify the nsa spying, the drones, gitmo, afghanistan, support for israel, and on and on. Yet they arent. And never will.

hedonist

musicismylife78 wrote:

Thats obvious. Im jsut not seeing why RS deserves such attention and outrage and its own thread devoted to "lets attack them with pitchforks" type nonsense, when as Byrnzie pointed out, the ENTIRE media infrastructure is built on this. You think the WaPost and CNN and Fox and ABC and all those outlets actually care about us, and are interested in educating us? All of it is money and power related. Watch during the election season. You can't score a big interview with Mccain and Obama if you ask them about drone attacks and war crimes.

Why not shine a light on RS? Shine it on whomever is worthy of scrutiny (though I'm not seeing your pitchfork scenario - people are discussing this mostly with reason). No different than the Trayvon thread; one of many in a huge pool.

PS to Thirty Bills - excellent and appropriate Tool reference! I'd also toss in Harrison's and Henley's Devil's Radio and Dirty Laundry, respectively. If not for manipulated frothing, there would likely be no feeding.