Rolling Stone puts Boston bombing suspect on cover

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Chadwick can work the door. Byrnzie could be the maître d'.

Does that mean I'd have to smile at people? :twisted:

bouncer it is!

Byrnzie wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.

To further your point: Of the 100 Rolling Stone covers prior to the most recent one, only 5 were non-pop culture related. One in 2010 about climate change that only featured text, three of Obama (2 leading up to the 2012 election), and one a caricature of Romney (also leading up to the 2012 election). The rest range from the Stones and McCartney to Justin Bieber (twice) and Snookie. If Rolling Stone wants to hang their hat on investigative journalism they have a funny way of marketing to that.

Regardless of what they put on the cover, every one of their magazines contains an article on politics/current affairs.

As a subscriber for as long as I can remember, I'm well aware of the magazine's contents. It's not the majority of the content and it's not how they market themselves. That is why this bugs people.

pjl44 wrote:

Haven't read the feature yet, but an ironic couple of lines from Peter Travers's Pacific Rim review in the same issue. Speaking about the humans who pilot the robots:

"You need two pilots who connect their minds on a neural bridge called "the Drift." Make the wrong move and your brain explodes. Succeed and you're a rock star on the cover of Rolling Stone."

That speaks to the perception the general public has of the magazine and the brand the publishers have chosen to build.

It's like the old Sesame Street song: One of these things is not like the others... One of these things just doesn't belong.

Dave Grohl, Ozzy Osbourne, David Bowie, Bruno Mars, Rihanna, Billie Joe, and ... Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The piece is supposed to be outstanding, but placed on the cover and within the RS is most certainly a reach for a magazine that predominantly covers pop culture and music. Does anyone disagree that this is about marketing and magazine sales? The cheap ploy is what has people a little ticked off- a music magazine capitalizing on public enemy number one's face.

I'm never going to buy that the RS staff sat about in a Monday morning meeting with an editor demanding an informative piece on the Boston Bomber because that's what their readers have come to expect and demand from their product. I see a much different meeting with people frothing and licking their chops at the expected spike in sales. While this might be fair enough and within the magazine's rights... it doesn't mean that people can't be critical of the jump from the norm seeking profit.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

It's like the old Sesame Street song: One of these things is not like the others... One of these things just doesn't belong.

Dave Grohl, Ozzy Osbourne, David Bowie, Bruno Mars, Rihanna, Billie Joe, and ... Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The piece is supposed to be outstanding, but placed on the cover and within the RS is most certainly a reach for a magazine that predominantly covers pop culture and music. Does anyone disagree that this is about marketing and magazine sales? The cheap ploy is what has people a little ticked off- a music magazine capitalizing on public enemy number one's face.

I'm never going to buy that the RS staff sat about in a Monday morning meeting with an editor demanding an informative piece on the Boston Bomber because that's what their readers have come to expect and demand from their product. I see a much different meeting with people frothing and licking their chops at the expected spike in sales. While this might be fair enough and within the magazine's rights... it doesn't mean that people can't be critical of the jump from the norm seeking profit.

what magazine isn't about sales?

i think the criticisms of the piece seems to now simply be the picture they chose to use ... not necessarily the article just the supposed glamourization of the suspect ...

although i agree - everyone has a right to their opinion on the tastefulness of the cover and the piece itself but i do find it strange that someone would blast the magazine on the basis of profits and sales ...

also - the mainstream media has failed the public ... it rarely investigates critically and informs the public anymore ... and people are now reliant on non-traditional outlets for the kind of work that used to be done by newspapers and news outlets ... the first question everyone should have asked after the bombings after who is why ... no one seems to care about why ... only payback ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Good enough. I wasn't sure.

I'm inclined to disagree with your last statement though. I think many people wish to know why.

if that's the case ... why isn't anyone investigating? ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Why do you think nobody is investigating?

because no one wants to face reality ... and there is a need by everyone involved that this person be vilified in a particular way ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You are making sweeping generalizations that do not necessarily apply to all.

You are losing me a little here. Sorry if I have missed something, but what reality are we scared to face?

There are limitations to the average joe's ability to gather all the information and process it as it likely should be processed. Given that, my reality is that I will never know the full story. My reality is also that I view this asshole as a villain no matter what his motivations might have been.

i've never understood why people keep saying this ... generalizations do not apply to all ... of course they don't - that's why they call them generalizations ...

at the end of the day - what mainstream media outlet is investigating the motivations of these brothers? ... why is there no national debate on US foreign policy and the impacts of the countries decisions in iraq, pakistan, afghanistan and syria? ... instead we're talking about a cover photo ...