Rolling Stones and the Boston Bomber cover.

[Higgins86]

BBC News - Rolling Stone's Boston bomb suspect cover sparks outrage


pretty disgraceful front cover in my opinion which glorifies Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, nothng like exploiting a tradegy isnt that right rolling stone?

 

[rocket88]

Rolling Stone has done current events covers in the past, so this is just another one of them.

I don't see how calling him a "monster" is glorifying him, but...

 

[clownboy]

Agreed. Like when Time gave Man of the Year with cover to Khomeini (or before that Stalin - twice!) or when the Nobel folks gave that Ringo Starr look-a-like the Peace Prize.

 

[Wiseone]

A magazine putting out an eye-catching and perhaps controversial cover to promote sales and interest?

Never....

 

[soccerboy22]

Rolling Stone has done current events covers in the past, so this is just another one of them.

I don't see how calling him a "monster" is glorifying him, but...

It is the image more than anything. It is very Morrison-looking.

 

[rocket88]

It is the image more than anything. It is very Morrison-looking.

I guess, but that's kind of splitting hairs. "He looks good in this photo taken by somebody else. EVIL!" Unless they took the photo and played with it to make it look good....

 

[Higgins86]

Rolling Stone has done current events covers in the past, so this is just another one of them.

I don't see how calling him a "monster" is glorifying him, but...

its more the picture and the headline " the bomber" on the front page.

 

[Tucker Case]

I'm torn. I think that a "real" pic of the bomber like that puts a face on terrorism, and it's not the face people imagine when they hear the term "terrorist". And the pic fits the story based on the description: a seemingly normal kid turns into a mass-murdering monster.

At the same time, I think that the venue (Rolling Stone) is a bad one for that kind of pic and it's insensitive to the people of Boston to give even the slightest appearance of glorifying the bomber.

 

[soccerboy22]

I guess, but that's kind of splitting hairs. "He looks good in this photo taken by somebody else. EVIL!" Unless they took the photo and played with it to make it look good....

Well first off I do realize that I am probably the last person on this forum that will be objective because of my connection to the bombing, but that picture makes him look rather angelic. I am sure the magazine will sell more because of it, but it is sort of like a slap towards those who were/know people injured.

 

[Higgins86]

I'm torn. I think that a "real" pic of the bomber like that puts a face on terrorism, and it's not the face people imagine when they hear the term "terrorist". And the pic fits the story based on the description: a seemingly normal kid turns into a mass-murdering monster.

At the same time, I think that the venue (Rolling Stone) is a bad one for that kind of pic and it's insensitive to the people of Boston to give even the slightest appearance of glorifying the bomber.

didnt they also get in hot water after their front cover featuring charles manson back in the 70's?

 

[Tucker Case]

didnt they also get in hot water after their front cover featuring charles manson back in the 70's?

I have no idea. I was still swimming around in my old man's satchel for most of the 70's. :lol:

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Why are we all sitting here overanalyzing a goddamn picture? It's a picture. Rolling Stone is a magazine that wants to get high sales, so of course they are going to do something like this. At the end of the day, you'll be angry for about two seconds and then forget about it by the time early August rolls around.

 

[Higgins86]

Why are we all sitting here overanalyzing a goddamn picture? It's a picture. Rolling Stone is a magazine that wants to get high sales, so of course they are going to do something like this. At the end of the day, you'll be angry for about two seconds and then forget about it by the time early August rolls around.

its not really overanalyzing its pretty clear in the picture that its disrespectful to the victims of the Boston bombings and that is why people are reacting to it. I personally am not angry about this more just sad that a respected magazine would go to such lengths to make more money.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

its not really overanalyzing its pretty clear in the picture that its disrespectful to the victims of the Boston bombings and that is why people are reacting to it. I personally am not angry about this more just sad that a respected magazine would go to such lengths to make more money.

Seriously? You're actually legitimately surprised? In a world where more and more people are getting their information online and less and less people are subscribing to magazines and newspapers, you are surprised that they would do this?

 

[Higgins86]

Seriously? You're actually legitimately surprised? In a world where more and more people are getting their information online and less and less people are subscribing to magazines and newspapers, you are surprised that they would do this?

am I suprised that an American magazine company would exploit a terrorist attack in order to boost sales? Yes, especially when you consider how long it took America to recover mentally from 9/11.

 

[azgreg]

This cover is more offensive.

 

[danarhea]

BBC News - Rolling Stone's Boston bomb suspect cover sparks outrage


pretty disgraceful front cover in my opinion which glorifies Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, nothng like exploiting a tradegy isnt that right rolling stone?

I strongly disagree. First of all, the actual article explains how a kid who loved America at one time was transformed by a hate group into becoming the monster that he is.

As for the cover photo? It's pretty accurate. It shows that a monster could be the all American kid next door who was sucked into radicalism. Could be your or my next door neighbor, for all we know.

 

[blaxshep]

am I suprised that an American magazine company would exploit a terrorist attack in order to boost sales? Yes, especially when you consider how long it took America to recover mentally from 9/11.

Why not the government exploits terrorist attacks to limit our freedoms and infringe upon our rights to grow their power. Where is the outrage over that?

 

[The Man]

The real news here is that Rolling Stone still publishes a magazine. Who knew? And who buys it?

 

[ChrisL]

Rolling Stone has done current events covers in the past, so this is just another one of them.

I don't see how calling him a "monster" is glorifying him, but...

Maybe not glorifying him, but was this really necessary? I don't think so. To sick people who would do something like this and want the publicity, it is glorification. :roll:

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'm torn. I think that a "real" pic of the bomber like that puts a face on terrorism, and it's not the face people imagine when they hear the term "terrorist". And the pic fits the story based on the description: a seemingly normal kid turns into a mass-murdering monster.

At the same time, I think that the venue (Rolling Stone) is a bad one for that kind of pic and it's insensitive to the people of Boston to give even the slightest appearance of glorifying the bomber.

Your point is perfect - people need to see that not all terrorists have beards to their bellies and turbans round their heads - some look like one of your kid's friends in school.

 

[ChrisL]

Your point is perfect - people need to see that not all terrorists have beards to their bellies and turbans round their heads - some look like one of your kid's friends in school.

Yeah, and they just love the recognition. It makes them into martyrs for the others who are like them.

 

[haymarket]

BBC News - Rolling Stone's Boston bomb suspect cover sparks outrage


pretty disgraceful front cover in my opinion which glorifies Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, nothng like exploiting a tradegy isnt that right rolling stone?

I looked at that cover. I see no glorification of somebody clearly labeled as a monster.

 

[The Man]

Good points made by both sides, for and against.

The thing is, Rolling Stone has to try to remain relevant and edgy in some way, and showing a picture of Marilyn Manson in his penis-less costume or a picture of Justin Bieber and his new haircut just doesn't make headlines anymore. Rolling Stone is an outfit on its last gasp and trying to stay noticed in some way.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Yeah, and they just love the recognition. It makes them into martyrs for the others who are like them.

Really? What's the alternative? Star Chamber trials for uncomfortable defendants and crimes?