Rolling Stone puts Boston bombing suspect on cover

123468

Comments

  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    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.

    For those affected by the Boston bombing, they have voiced their displeasure towards the cheap tactic that you yourself have expressed disdain for. Some don't marginalize the Boston Bombers because there are worse things happening in the world that we might not hear about as much as we should.

    You're coming at it from a defensive angle, yet the majority of your posts are laced with comments attacking the media. Some on here who have spoken against the RS cover feel the same as you regarding the media and their methods of operation. Why would you argue against them for voicing their displeasure that runs parallel to many of your claims? We're essentially saying similar things except it seems as if you are suggesting that you are saying it better.

    This is a cheap ploy by the magazine to sell magazines and publicize their product. If it is obvious as you stated... then why can't that just be left alone? By presenting all the other notions surrounding the media and its lack of integrity... it seems as if some here are suggesting that others have their heads up their asses and can only see the media at fault in this simple type of scenario- oblivious to the typical everyday media sham that we are exposed to.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    musicismylife78 wrote:

    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.

    I'm not buying into that statistic you present- at all. I don't think the media is necessarily the root of the problem as much as it acts as a tool for the puppet masters: sorry for the analogy... but remoras on sharks feeding on scraps.

    I'll play Devil's advocate for a post or two: when you say how many media outlets report on war crimes and the other items you listed... could it be fair to suggest that many reporters would love to report on such juicy items, but cannot because of the lack of information or access?

    Is it a case of the media willingly turning a blind eye... or a case of the media reporting on what they have been fed and what they have been able to see?

    I'm in favour of investigative journalism as we all are. Unfortunately, we are not subjected to the efforts of these people very often: this type of work takes time and the papers and news stations needs fresh material daily. Hence, the flood of everyday dribble that entertains us and the rare and seldom shocker that took time to piece together.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    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.

    I won't disagree with this because we are saying the same thing from different angles. One must acknowledge that advertisers don't buy ads in magazines that typically go unsold. The magazine needs to show numbers to appeal to advertisers; therefore, they need readers and they need publicity.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    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.

    See, this is where I think you are fooled. Real journalism is dead. Journalists in mainstream media now do not have an independent say or else they're fired. They are all controlled, told how to act, what to say, everything. You have to really hunt down independent news sources like Democracy Now to get a truly unbiased, unfaltered, uncensored journalistic opinion. The media is nothing but a circus and the unwavering public do not think critically enough to question what they're being fed, they just want to be comfortable and think that they're being told the truth. I've been studying the media since getting my degree 20 years ago, and people really need to wake up and question the lies being told to us every single day in the media.
    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.

    Under George W. Bush, all caskets of returning soldiers from Iraq were deemed never to be seen in the media. That is a fact, and Obama lifted it, although govt STILL doesn't show what's really going on in war-torn areas. "Keep the public asleep, they're more comfortable there..." Brian Williams, if he EVER sidesteps his neatly laid out teleprompter would immediately be fired. As a journalist, he's nothing but a puppet in front of the camera. And like I said before, the media is PRIVATELY OWNED. That means there is NO FREE WILL INVOLVED. Please, if anything, hear what I'm saying and don't trust the media, for it's not free, it's not public, it's not it's own entity. Question everything you see and hear, and observe the manipulative tactics. It's all there, we just have to look at everything from a critical perspective, not a trusting one. Because the last thing we should trust is mainstream media, let alone our government.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    hedonist wrote:
    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.


    Well, because RS is no different. RS deserve as much critique and outrage as CNN and Fox and ABC does. Read up on Taibbi. He posted a lengthy critique of the outrage over all this. He linked to a NY Times front page color, large photo of the bomber. And he points out RS's lengthy countercultural and political history.

    Speaking of Tool, vicarious wasnt an attack on a single media outlet. Its a radical critique of society at large, all media, corporations, and us as humans. All of it. Thats what interests me, Not this silly stuff of reformist politics of "if only we change one law things will be peachy again". Thats nonsense. I just have no tolerance for it. At all. Maynard isnt wanting to have us go to congress and change a law. He wants us to think deeply about these issues and understand our role in it all.

    I need to vicariously watch as the whole world dies. Why can't we just admit it, we wont give pause until the blood is flowing. Shot by his own son, drowned by the ocean, she used the poison in his tea.

    That aint some "lets denounce Time magazine and everything will be better" nonsense. Its just not.
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    hedonist wrote:
    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.


    Well, because RS is no different. RS deserve as much critique and outrage as CNN and Fox and ABC does. Read up on Taibbi. He posted a lengthy critique of the outrage over all this. He linked to a NY Times front page color, large photo of the bomber. And he points out RS's lengthy countercultural and political history.

    Speaking of Tool, vicarious wasnt an attack on a single media outlet. Its a radical critique of society at large, all media, corporations, and us as humans. All of it. Thats what interests me, Not this silly stuff of reformist politics of "if only we change one law things will be peachy again". Thats nonsense. I just have no tolerance for it. At all. Maynard isnt wanting to have us go to congress and change a law. He wants us to think deeply about these issues and understand our role in it all.

    I need to vicariously watch as the whole world dies. Why can't we just admit it, we wont give pause until the blood is flowing. Shot by his own son, drowned by the ocean, she used the poison in his tea.

    That aint some "lets denounce Time magazine and everything will be better" nonsense. Its just not.

    Nobody said Vicarious was an attack on a single media outlet. I used it to support the proposition that it is society that creates the need for gory and sensational news. This is how it was brought up:

    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).

    You really need to read more closely before denouncing others.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • RW81233
    RW81233 Posts: 2,393
    so...wait did anyone actually read the article yet?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    RW81233 wrote:
    so...wait did anyone actually read the article yet?

    viewtopic.php?f=13&t=212002&start=45#p5140359
  • RW81233
    RW81233 Posts: 2,393
    so three of us read it and all 3 of us said it was good...the rest of you are arguing on the merits of the cover. seems like marketers did their job.
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,394
    They could have chosen another photo that didn't make it look like it was the cover of Tiger Beat.

    RS should get back to what they are good at like destroying the careers of successful 4 star generals.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Jason P wrote:
    They could have chosen another photo that didn't make it look like it was the cover of Tiger Beat.

    RS should get back to what they are good at like destroying the careers of successful 4 star generals.
    Thank you.

    (and you too, Thirty)
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    RW81233 wrote:
    so three of us read it and all 3 of us said it was good...the rest of you are arguing on the merits of the cover. seems like marketers did their job.

    i just read it ... i wouldn't say it was great ... but on par with what RS has done before ...
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    there is a whole list of stores that refuse to carry that issue of RS dit it get pulled off the shelves ? in your area's ?
    I looked in my area and nobody had it and some even told me that they may not carry RS anymore.

    Godfather.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    .[/quote]


    Well, because RS is no different. RS deserve as much critique and outrage as CNN and Fox and ABC does. Read up on Taibbi. He posted a lengthy critique of the outrage over all this. He linked to a NY Times front page color, large photo of the bomber. And he points out RS's lengthy countercultural and political history.

    Speaking of Tool, vicarious wasnt an attack on a single media outlet. Its a radical critique of society at large, all media, corporations, and us as humans. All of it. Thats what interests me, Not this silly stuff of reformist politics of "if only we change one law things will be peachy again". Thats nonsense. I just have no tolerance for it. At all. Maynard isnt wanting to have us go to congress and change a law. He wants us to think deeply about these issues and understand our role in it all.

    I need to vicariously watch as the whole world dies. Why can't we just admit it, we wont give pause until the blood is flowing. Shot by his own son, drowned by the ocean, she used the poison in his tea.

    That aint some "lets denounce Time magazine and everything will be better" nonsense. Its just not.[/quote]

    Nobody said Vicarious was an attack on a single media outlet. I used it to support the proposition that it is society that creates the need for gory and sensational news. This is how it was brought up:

    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).

    You really need to read more closely before denouncing others.[/quote]


    So do you. unless Im reading it wrong, you view this cover as a bad thing, and a shameful, shameless thing. My question is, if thats the case, why havent you, and everyone else, started a thread denouncing the NY Times and other media outlets not only for putting the Bomber on the covers of their media forums, but for putting serial killers, murderers, rapists, presidents who are all 3 of those, etc...

    For me, this is an inane issue. its putting a bandaid on a car crash victim and saying it matters. It doesnt. Tool and Maynard would agree with me. This is about society and systemic issues. Banning a RS doesnt do anything. It just doesnt. Its censorship for one. And two, it doesnt deal with the real issue of figuring out why it happened and preventing it. Nor does it respect the victims. They deserve justice, figuring out why it happened, and making sure nothing like it happens again.

    Our society wants simple answers. We smugly sit by and think banning swear words and violence in hip hop, or nude girls in Grand Theft Auto actually does something. And we pat ourselves on the back. But it does nothing.

    Again, im not into it. Im just sick of it. We dont need a few laws changed. Or congress to do this. Or senate to do that. We need systemic, radical fundamental change, focused on how we as a society view, consume, engage with violence, war, death etc... Thats not acheived by banning or condemning RS.

    And that begins with realizing RS is no different than the local news or CNN or Time, or any of it. Any attempt to seperate them is just playing tennis without the net.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    Jason P wrote:
    They could have chosen another photo that didn't make it look like it was the cover of Tiger Beat.

    RS should get back to what they are good at like destroying the careers of successful 4 star generals.


    Read Taibbi's article about the controversy. he posts a full color photo of a NY Times article, front page, full color spread on the Bomber. Same photo. Same presentation. They refer to him as a monster on the cover. Not sure id say thats a Tiger Beat style cover.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    im interested in the controversy. Why does RS putting him on the cover get THIS much press and hype and anger?

    Yet this type of stuff happens daily in every major newspaper, on every major news program on tv, on every local news station. DAILY. It happened today. And it will happen tomorrow too.

    Media outlets disrespecting victims, propping up killers as rock stars, the worship of death, violence and war. The refusal to dig deep into a subject and to merely present a surface and cursory discussion of it.

    Why doesnt every newspaper and news broadcast inspire this much outrage on peoples behalf?

    Im as pissed off about the media in reguards to their total silence on drone attacks, gitmo, NSA, the economy, as I am about this.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,613
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    They could have chosen another photo that didn't make it look like it was the cover of Tiger Beat.

    RS should get back to what they are good at like destroying the careers of successful 4 star generals.


    Read Taibbi's article about the controversy. he posts a full color photo of a NY Times article, front page, full color spread on the Bomber. Same photo. Same presentation. They refer to him as a monster on the cover. Not sure id say thats a Tiger Beat style cover.

    Fair enough, but I don't think the audiences for Rolling Stone and the NY Times are even remotely the same. I am not concerned at all with what the NY Times or Time Magazine put on their covers. Time is a news magazine and no one would mistake it for anything other than that. The same cannot be said for Rolling Stone regardless of whatever reporting it may have done over the years. Stillwater wasn't trying to get on the cover of Time or the NY Times.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,613
    If anyone can direct me to the text of this article that does not require a click-thru at Rolling Stone's website it would be greatly appreciated.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    I don't think anyone was calling for banning or censorship...are they? If so, I've missed it.

    But, I think it's a fine thing - more than a fine thing - to call out anyone pandering to (or contributing to) the lowest common denominator.

    And - speaking about this, discussing it, doesn't automatically imply that one doesn't give a shit or two about other similar issues. That's a broad and unfair assumption to make.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    JimmyV wrote:
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    They could have chosen another photo that didn't make it look like it was the cover of Tiger Beat.

    RS should get back to what they are good at like destroying the careers of successful 4 star generals.


    Read Taibbi's article about the controversy. he posts a full color photo of a NY Times article, front page, full color spread on the Bomber. Same photo. Same presentation. They refer to him as a monster on the cover. Not sure id say thats a Tiger Beat style cover.

    Fair enough, but I don't think the audiences for Rolling Stone and the NY Times are even remotely the same. I am not concerned at all with what the NY Times or Time Magazine put on their covers. Time is a news magazine and no one would mistake it for anything other than that. The same cannot be said for Rolling Stone regardless of whatever reporting it may have done over the years. Stillwater wasn't trying to get on the cover of Time or the NY Times.

    Time isnt a news magazine. I think thats incorrect. Its a tool used to make money. Time doesnt, and RS doesnt either for that matter, aim to educate the public. Its a marketing ploy, nothing else. Just as ABC news is. As Dylan said

    "If I want to find out anything, I’m not going to read Time magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek. I’m not going to read any of these magazines. I mean, because they’ve just got too much to lose by printing the truth"

    He said that 50 years ago. Fail to see how that isnt as relevant in 2013 as it was in 1964.

    Time isnt a news magazine, and its sad if people mistake it for such. The truth isnt found in it. The content is the ads. Just as it is in any magazine. The filler is the articles. Just as network tv is commercials. the filler is the actual show.

    Time isnt out to educate us on anything. They dont care. Why would they?

Categories