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

I'm enraged and have lost allrespect for this rag. They have become the sad, desperate, dispicible crack-whore of the magazine world.

We should all spread the word of a boycott. This is TOO far, RS.

[thepowergoats.com]

Here's the story I just read about it...
[www.theglobeandmail.com]

[thepowergoats.com]

What a rotten rag...doesn't deserve to carry the name.

I'd boycott them but I stopped reading that rag ages ago.

Jan Wenner seems to have his head up his nether regions.

Quote
treaclefingers
What a rotten rag...doesn't deserve to carry the name.

I'd boycott them but I stopped reading that rag ages ago.

Jan Wenner seems to have his head up his nether regions.

so true treaclefingers

What's next? A child rapist on the cover???

[thepowergoats.com]

I wonder if they thought that all publicity is good publicity, and this might stir sales.

I hope it backfires on them completely...I hope even the sure to come disingenuous apology and a cover with the heroes that will invariably come fails miserably.

They deserve the bitch-slapping coming to them.

What next, a Rock Star shot with Zimmerman with the headline, "...just a shot away!"

Quote
treaclefingers
I wonder if they thought that all publicity is good publicity, and this might stir sales.

If that's the case then they are VILE human beings. I hope they end up jobless and broke after this.

[thepowergoats.com]

ummmm...it did start out as a music/political newspaper back in the 70s

Quote
treaclefingers
I wonder if they thought that all publicity is good publicity, and this might stir sales.

I think that's pretty much the mindset of most magazines these days. Seems like every few months some magazine has made itself a news story simply by doing something controversial. Remember how big of a deal that Time magazine cover of the breastfeeding woman was? It was 24 hour coverage over that silly little thing. The 24 hour news cycle is predictable, in that unless there's a tragedy going on that day they are scrounging for any little story to blow out of proportion.

they once put Charles Manson on the cover





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-17 23:38 by schillid.

P*** on that magazine.

Pretty pathetic to stoop to this level just to get some attention for a magazine that is no longer relevant.

It's bad enough they put the Boston Bomber on the cover. It's worse that he is casually posed, like he's some actor or up & coming indie artist.

This man caused a lot of people a lot of hurt. If they are going to put him on the cover, at least use a mug shot or have him in an orange jumpsuit.

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

I'm enraged and have lost allrespect for this rag. They have become the sad, desperate, dispicible crack-whore of the magazine world.

We should all spread the word of a boycott. This is TOO far, RS.

they have been like the way you describe for a real long time

Is this similar to the SUN?

Quote
jamesfdouglas
What's next? A child rapist on the cover???

You mean Gary Glitter?

calm down, everyone:

[www.rollingstone.com]

the subtitle of this cover story is:

"how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical islam and became a monster."

the magazine may no longer be relevant, but that's an appropriate—and, I daresay, interesting—story to report.

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.

Quote
dcba

You mean Gary Glitter?

As sick as Glitter evidently is, I still enjoy some of his music when I hear it.

Quote
MILKYWAY
It's bad enough they put the Boston Bomber on the cover. It's worse that he is casually posed, like he's some actor or up & coming indie artist.

My exact thoughts.

I have been sick of Jann Wenner and his BS and his crappy magazine for years, all in all this is just another brick in the wall.

People who were athletes are now in wheel chairs for life,
Good people were killed because of this piece of crap and for Wenner to put his face on his magazine (MAINLY TO MAKE MONEY) and glorify the bombers BS is a disgrace... Who and why anyone would give one fk about this idiot, or how he became a monster is a mystery to me. Fk him! and I bet anyone who thinks otherwise would feel differently if a loved one was among the killed or injured.

I do not need the motivation of knowing any of the injured or killed, I am sick of it, and I am sick of having to see the faces and the hear the names of pieces of shit who kill innocent people and then are made famous for it... from those worthless fks at that Colorado high school, to serial murderers, to the idiot at the Batman movie theater, to mob bosses, to any of them... I would vote to banish their names and faces to hell, never to be seen on Earth again.

HELL YES BOYCOTT ROLLING STONES MAGAZINE FOR MAKING MONEY THIS TRAGEDY, that is sickening.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-17 22:32 by Max'sKansasCity.

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.

It's not rock and roll and Rolling Stone should burn.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-17 22:50 by GravityBoy.

From time to time Rolling Stone Magazine has always offered a "political piece."

Since I haven't read this one yet...I can't comment on it. But I do agree that this should not have been a cover.

Jann Wenner has always been a spoiled jerk...Rolling Stone was once important reading because it had damned good writers who loved music and wrote about it well.

God knows what Wenner will ultimately do regarding the Trayvon Martin "situation"...I have been depressed for days about it as many others, young and old, have been. Again, it should be inside the magazine as opposed to a cover. Let Jann get back to Taylor Swift and other "greats" for his covers.

I seldom buy a copy of Rolling Stone and haven't in years.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

the subtitle of this cover story is:

"how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical islam and became a monster."

the magazine may no longer be relevant, but that's an appropriate—and, I daresay, interesting—story to report.

I agree that the subject matter is worthwhile, but the choice to put Tsarnaev on the cover is in incredibly poor taste. They could have used any number of other images, maybe a few of the heroes from that day, if they wanted to highlight the story on the front cover.

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.

I didn't think it so hard to understand that RS is obviously shamelessly trying to sell mag's with the 'rock star' cover juxtaposed against a 'real article'

The report deserves to be told....but what an incredibly cynical way to sell it.

Screw jan.

It's still not as bad as what People magazine did in 1987, when they put Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, on the cover--sagely posing with his copy of Catcher in the Rye.

Quote
stonehearted
It's still not as bad as what People magazine did in 1987, when they put Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, on the cover--sagely posing with his copy of Catcher in the Rye.

As stonestod isn't here, please allow me on his behalf...."high praise indeed!"

It's the feature news story, therefore it gets the cover. I wish all news outlets were as forthcoming with real news. Cable news shows are busy setting racial fires right now.........that is worse to me.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted
It's still not as bad as what People magazine did in 1987, when they put Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, on the cover--sagely posing with his copy of Catcher in the Rye.

As stonestod isn't here, please allow me on his behalf...."high praise indeed!"

Fighting the temptation to say, "Best cover ever!"......oh, I just did.

There was a time when music fans felt that Rolling Stone was "ours."

NOT anymore. Hey Man, it's about marketing...ya know?