Quote
jamesfdouglas
Putting the Boston Boston suspect on your cover, giving him the Rock Star Treatment.

You know, magazines are not just pictures, there are words as well, which all make sentences, you are an adult, I guess you can read.

So what, you suggest that for some weird reasons there should be a ban on showing pictures of terrorists/criminals ?

I don't trust Rolling Stone's opinions on music anymore. Come on they gave Goddess In The Doorway five stars cos Jann Wenner is a friend of Mick's. But their non-music coverage has been consistently good. Matt Taibbi was all over the Wall Street fiasco at time of bailout. Ok they put a terrorist on the cover. My understanding the article is good journalism. Yes this is about sales. But I am not going to give a kneejerk reaction cos they did something controversial.

Quote
beepee2

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Putting the Boston Boston suspect on your cover, giving him the Rock Star Treatment.

You know, magazines are not just pictures, there are words as well, which all make sentences, you are an adult, I guess you can read.

So what, you suggest that for some weird reasons there should be a ban on showing pictures of terrorists/criminals ?

cynically doing so to sell magazines sucks. but it will continue.

It isn't just that they put a terrorist on the cover, it is that they used a very attractive photograph of a terrorist. Maybe we shouldn't react so viscerally to the image, but if the image were more muted or less attractive, I don't think people would be as upset by it. It does seem to convey rock star status.

Quote
latebloomer
It isn't just that they put a terrorist on the cover, it is that they used a very attractive photograph of a terrorist. Maybe we shouldn't react so viscerally to the image, but if the image were more muted or less attractive, I don't think people would be as upset by it. It does seem to convey rock star status.

Oh, there are bad people who look normal ! Really ?!? You thought baddies only looked like this:





Good on RS for showing that a 20yo terrorist can look ... like any 20yo...omg that's shocking!

......and if they used his mug shot, that would make him sympathetic to some.....it's a picture, I will reserve judgment until I actually read the story.

Haven't subscribed since early to mid nineties, about the same time the grunge era started and MTV turned to sh!t. Coincidence?

LateBloomer, good points!

This latest cover is making me miss Ozzie.

People still read Rolling Stone magazine?

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Well, they did have Charles Manson on the cover (once, I think). I'm sure it won't be the only magazine or newspaper with him on the front cover/page.

These days the magazine is much more relevant to me as a political information source than music and entertainment. Its articles are often well written, well researched and IMO often spot on whether the author is a staff or independent writer or someone like RFK, Jr. When I first saw a photo of this kid I commented on what a great looking kid he is. Isn't that the point? The face of evil does not always look like Charlie Manson. The face of evil can be...dare I say...young and beautiful? That is what is so disturbing.

Quote
latebloomer
It isn't just that they put a terrorist on the cover, it is that they used a very attractive photograph of a terrorist. Maybe we shouldn't react so viscerally to the image, but if the image were more muted or less attractive, I don't think people would be as upset by it. It does seem to convey rock star status.

The photo is a "selfie", not posed for Rolling Stone, and was widely published when Tsarnaev was first identified as a suspect.

Of course they're free to do it...it's just in poor taste, and at first glance looks as though they're glorifying it.

Why don't they put the survivors on the cover instead? Just a bad decision and even if everyone isn't pissed off I think enough people are that it will impact them.

I don't think I need to buy Rolling Stone to get the goods on the terrorist bombers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-18 06:26 by treaclefingers.

Wait a minute! Has this guy even had his day in court yet? Do we know for sure he's guilty?

Quote
rob51
Wait a minute! Has this guy even had his day in court yet? Do we know for sure he's guilty?

Why should he even have go to court?

He was probably just defending himself because he felt his life was threatened...

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
latebloomer
It isn't just that they put a terrorist on the cover, it is that they used a very attractive photograph of a terrorist. Maybe we shouldn't react so viscerally to the image, but if the image were more muted or less attractive, I don't think people would be as upset by it. It does seem to convey rock star status.

The photo is a "selfie", not posed for Rolling Stone, and was widely published when Tsarnaev was first identified as a suspect.

I know that, and there was discussion about his looks, then. Which is why I think it was deliberately provocative for RS magazine to use that image. They knew exactly what they were doing. Yes, terrorists can be good looking, as can any a-hole, I just think that if they wanted the focus to be on the story and not the image, they would have gone for a less controversial picture. But they want to sell the magazine, so the "selfie" gets the cover.

Sigh...Once again, putting someone on the cover of a magazine that covers news or current events is not moral approval, it's news. How dare the History Channel show those images of @#$%&'s speeches?

Quote
71Tele
Sigh...Once again, putting someone on the cover of a magazine that covers news or current events is not moral approval, it's news. How dare the History Channel show those images of @#$%&'s speeches?

If it was just news then they would have chosen something that was not already controversial, but it's also about business, the business of making money. Of course the story is important and needs to be covered, the article is probably very well researched and written, but I think it's a little naive to believe that they were acting only as serious journalists here. Personally, I don't care what they put on the cover, but I do understand the reaction and, having worked in the news business, I also understand why the editors used the photo.

As far as I'm concerned they can take that SOB out in the street and lynch him.

Quote
Roscoe

Quote
71Tele
It's a news story. Time Magazine put @#$%& on the cover because he was newsworthy, not because they endorsed Nazi ideas. People should get a grip.

This. Exactly. Repeat.........get a grip.

Have to agree. This has been done by them before with the Manson cover and other magazines have had controversial figures on their covers, e.g., Time with @#$%& on the cover and so on and so on. There are much more important things to get bent out of shape about...

Back in 1985 Billy's pose made this the most unpopular cover and poorest selling edition of RS....Dunno if it still holds those claims to fame ...



ROCKMAN

Quote
71Tele
Sigh...Once again, putting someone on the cover of a magazine that covers news or current events is not moral approval, it's news. How dare the History Channel show those images of @#$%&'s speeches?

Thank you.

Quote
71Tele
Sigh...Once again, putting someone on the cover of a magazine that covers news or current events is not moral approval, it's news. How dare the History Channel show those images of @#$%&'s speeches?

I don't think anyone's debating whether it's news, or whether there is 'moral approval'.

It's just bad taste, and meant to generate a little controversy to sell magazines. It is generating controversy, so mission accomplished. I just hope they don't sell many magazines.

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
71Tele
Sigh...Once again, putting someone on the cover of a magazine that covers news or current events is not moral approval, it's news. How dare the History Channel show those images of @#$%&'s speeches?

Thank you.

uh...you're welcome.

They put this face on the cover and called him THE BOMBer to make money selling their more of their rag mag, that is as slimey and low life as it gets.

So this is what Rolling Stone magazine is today.... so it is what it is..

Being "On the cover of the Rolling Stone" used to take quite a bit of work and talent... now all it requires is killing and crippling innocent people. Fk Rolling Stone magazine, Jann Wenner and all of the people who put this cover together.

He's a sex symbol to some women:

America’s Sociopath Fetish

by Michelle Malkin

July 12, 1013; Creators Syndicate

I would like to declare a war on women — namely, all those cringe-inducing ninnies who lust after every celebrity criminal defendant with big muscles, tattoos, puppy-dog eyes or Hollywood hair.

You know who I’m talking about, right? America’s Bad Boy groupies. They’re on the courthouse steps with their “Free Jahar” signs, cooing over how “hot” and “cute” the bloodstained Boston Marathon bombing suspect is. He “can blow me up with babies,” one moral reprobate quipped shortly after his capture. “I’m not gonna lie, the second bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is hot. #sorrynotsorry,” another young girl boasted.

Among the callous accused killer’s victims, in case you’d forgotten: 8-year-old boy Martin Richard, who had been cheering on his dad and other family friends at the race. But who cares about an innocent dead child blown to bits by pressure cooker bombs in the name of Allah? Jahar is HAWT!

Far from a minuscule fringe, the Ja-harem is a growing social media phenomenon. Its members mimic Justin Bieber’s Beliebers, adopting the last name of their Tiger Beat terrorist and doodling hearts around his mug shot. In heat or in jest, these depraved females continue to spread viral photos, memes and hashtags of their Islamist Idol. One woman showed up at Tsarnaev’s court appearance Wednesday donning a “Free the Lion” T-shirt. Another sported a “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent” tee, while her gal pal shouted, “Exonerate!”

For those ladies who prefer jocks to jihadis, there’s accused murderer/NFL star Aaron Hernandez. He’s “fine as wine,” one woman lusted. He’s “too damned sexy to go to prison,” another lamented. “He can come to jail at my house,” sighed yet another. In response to one of gangsta Hernandez’s Glock-wielding Instagram pics, one sick chick slavered, “Soooo hot with the combination handgun-mirror selfie.”

Fugitive cop-killer Christopher Dorner also had his own fan club. Parked in front of their TV sets, women cheered on the “kinda sexy” homicidal maniac as he terrorized Southern California before perishing in a cabin inferno. “I’d honestly hide Dorner in my house,” one fan girl enthused. Tens of thousands “liked” Dorner’s various support pages on Facebook.

Harmless Internet chitter-chatter? Don’t kid yourselves. While some of the murderers’ panting minions may be joking, it’s irresponsible women like these who end up enabling, marrying and conspiring with public menaces.

They’re your neighbors and relatives, suburban gals like Colleen “Jihad Jane” LaRose and Jamie “Jihad Jamie” Paulin-Ramirez of Colorado, who agreed to wed Muslim terrorists and conspired to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. Paulin-Ramirez dragged her 6-year-old (whom she renamed “Walid”) to Ireland to assist with the plot. Family members said she was “easily influenced” and that “any man that came along … she kind of followed like a lost puppy.”

It would be one thing if these morally stunted followers segregated themselves in enclaves outside the American mainstream. But some of these damaged goods end up on juries, entrusted to weigh evidence fairly, digest complex instructions, and render impartial verdicts in matters of life and death. Indeed, they are aggressively sought after by predatory defense lawyers. I’ll never forget the female jurors of the first murder trial of confessed parent-killers Lyle and Erik Menendez. Star-struck by “glamorous” defense lawyer Jill Leslie Abramson, the women of the Menendez jury told Los Angeles reporters that “they admired her wardrobe and biting wit.”

Their swooning for the hunky Menendez brothers, whom they praised as “bright” and “nice,” was obscene. After a mistrial was declared, Abramson arranged for “her jurors” to meet the boys. Soon after, talk show queen Sally Jesse Raphael hosted a program on “women who would leave their husbands to marry a Menendez.”
From Menendez mania to Free Jahar, the pathologies persist: Easily led. Emotion-driven. Desperate for male approbation. Prone to acting with their lady parts instead of their lady smarts. Heckuva job, feminism! All the equalization and parity in education and the workplace are for naught if women can’t distinguish right from wrong and “hot” from evil.

Lesson learned: You can indoctrinate generations of American women in the ways of gender empowerment, but you can’t make a goodly portion of them think straight. Hormones trump basic human decency and good judgment in the crowded coven of sociopaths.

From: [michellemalkin.com]

""Among the callous accused killer’s victims, in case you’d forgotten: 8-year-old boy Martin Richard, who had been cheering on his dad and other family friends at the race. But who cares about an innocent dead child blown to bits by pressure cooker bombs in the name of Allah? Jahar is HAWT!""


Looking at you Jann Wenner, you magazine shilling P.O.S.

Too much hysteria, here...

Sorry, but people who blame RS magazine for "gloryfying" Tsarnaev can't be serious... The magazine just did an analysis. Take it or leave it.

"It isn't just that they put a terrorist on the cover, it is that they used a very attractive photograph of a terrorist"... Oh, what an accusation!... People, that was exactly the thread of the magazine: How "a normal guy, a good student, can be trasformed into a monster". Under which conditons and influences, etc, etc. Why on earth do you believe the magazine should use a "cooked" Tsarnaev's photograph?

During the Middle Ages (and a bit later), Inquisition was "examinating" how the artists were painting. But "burning" a magazine - which doesn't imagine and doesn't paint someone's face, just publishes photographs - because it didn't show a Tsarnaev having bloodstained teeth (as if public's opinion about his crime depended on this!), sorry, it seems even more horrid.

PS: To alleviate somehow the atmosphere here, i express my "suspicion": Jamesfdouglas started this thread against the "RS", just because the magazine does like the Stones. No?

I'm more angry they're not following up the Michael Hastings story. Some of it is conspiracy rubbish but some of it is extremely worrying. Only Kimberly Dvorak at San Diego 6 is doing any work on this (unless you count the rabid Alex Jones and i'd rather not).

I didn't know that Michael Hastings story... thanks for putting that name.