Rolling Stones cover with the Boston Bomber
yuichi
Urban sprawl 11,331 Posts
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/18/retailers-vow-not-to-sell-rolling-stone-as-critics-blast-decision-to-put/
"The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens," the statement said.
smh.
"The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens," the statement said.
smh.
Comments
And it worked.
The last thing you want to do is glorify people who are murdering/killing civilians in the media.
RollingStone " :ehhx2: but he's cute and we wanna be edgy"
Did it? I haven't seen the sales numbers. I still don't see them as relevant, though.
if facebook statuses and message board threads were money they'd be on sugar hill.
ill bet they sell 27 copies.
The article is about how he went from the kid depicted on the cover to the bomber that we know. The picture fits the story. And is a lot more interesting than a picture of Robin Thicke.
This picture has already appeared above the fold of the NYTimes, which has a far greater distribution than RS.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rush-featured-on-new-canadian-stamp-20130719
While I find the picture choice to be in poor taste, the small part of me that bothers to be bothered by it objects more to the story subhead: "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family..." Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. He's a grown adult and is responsible for his actions.
Those won't be out for a month or so.
They've got more publicity in the last few days than they have in the last five years, that alone makes it a smash.
it should look more like this:
and the spin on the story of a popular kid who was failed by the or parents or society or whatever the fuck they say he was failed by is bullshit. the real subtext is "Cute target demographic kid isn't responsible for his actions".
if the dude was fat and 15 years older he'd be looked at like every other dark skinned terrorist in the media no matter if his parent's failed him or not. Lesson relearned: It ain't what you do, its how you look. I'm wondering if any of the victims got considered for a Rolling Stones cover or if a story on how society wronged them was considered.
It wouldn't surprise me if the article was a solid and necessary piece of journalism, but putting a sexy, tousle-haired photo of him on the cover is another thing altogether - the obvious inference considering the context is that he is some kind of 'rock star'.
And to answer an earlier question, dude already has a huge female following in this country, and I suspect it just got bigger.
If it's a good piece of journalism then using this picture on the front page might have helped to make a point. The people we have to be worried about worship him for what he's done and not for making the front page of the Rolling Stone.
At this point its not about the article, its about the promotion of the magazine. The article is immaterial. the cover with a innocent looking photo and a headline of how he was wronged is whats really angering.
AIN'T NOTHING NEW.
I'm not defending either man, but if no one bitched back in 1970, why now? Manson wasn't loved either!
I'm not sure that "no one bitched"
I meant that no one bitched that he was on the cover. It was an important news story of the day.
lookin' hella tripledouble-y circa 'horizons of the mind' pressing.
He was 19 at the time of the bombing.
That makes him an adult in the eyes of the law for sure.
But, I can speak for myself, and I say I was a fucking moron at age 19, and not a "grown adult". I'm not saying I was anything approaching a terrorist; just that this change seemed to begin in his teens.
I think we get into really dangerous territory if we try to understand what creates terrorist or their motivations, but we're so quick to decry putting that information out there.
And, what are NYTimes circulation numbers vs Rolling Stone.
I have no problem with the story being investigated and told. It's not the information, it's the tone that's the problem. And lots of folks have tough lives. That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for any crimes they may commit against others. It doesn't mitigate it. It doesn't lessen it, or make it partly someone else's fault that they did what they did. He decided to ruin the lives of as many people as he could, and he is fully and completely responsible for that. That is all.
I am saying that 19 is not a "grown adult," and I'll continue to say it. I am not saying he's a minor, or he shouldn't have known better, or that he shouldn't face the harshest charges and penalties.
Somewhere between the rock and roll selfie on the cover of Rolling Stone and the shot of him with a sniper site on his forehead, something happened. That's the story. Not about his "tough life".
I agree. It's a story that should be told. But it's the editorial responsibility of a purportedly journalistic magazine to understand the tone with which they tell a story, especially when it is as sensitive as this one. There were other pictures available. Other subheads they could have used. They either chose to be provocative (and let's be honest???that is almost certainly what happened here), or they were completely tone-deaf to the situation. Either way, fuck them.
Same thing with Holmes, same way Lanza was. Be white and cute, and you are afforded the benefit (of the doubt) of coming up under a mentally ill older brother and religious fanatic of a mother, of being on drugs, of having a personal history of mental illness. Something happens to anyone who goes from being born and learning how to walk and talk to deciding to kill as many people as possible....which one of those people isn't mentally unhinged?
Some get a young Bob Dylan-esque front cover, others, well, not so glamorous and benign.
They tryna move units of hard print too...surely there were other photos of the kid.
as far as I can tell people are pissed because he's not being completely demonized by Rolling Stone, as if he's supposed to be the second coming of Osama bin Laden or something.
personally, I think his story is much more closely related to the stories of the various kids who've gone on shooting sprees than it is to any islamist radical. And with those kids there's always a good dose of "how did this come to happen?" in the coverage of their cases. I don't think there's anything wrong with RS doing that here, and I also don't think that showing some empathy towards a criminal means you're condoning or excusing their actions. But If I was in his family I'd be kinda pissed about that subhead.
I'm saying this without having read the article though, for all I know the article is shit. They were obviously going for some shock value with that cover, no news there. They got the attention they wanted.