Was the New York Times being provocative when they published it?
Are photos of a terrorist before they were a terrorist unpublishable?
I'll let this slide as you see it your way, I see it mine- but in my opinion- in an article about the roots of a terrorist, and where he came from, a photo of them before they became a terrorist is totally fair game. Add to it that when he was captured, the stories from Cambridge were universally, "he was the LAST person we ever would've expected this from." It's not like the Unibomber, where people were like, "oh yeah- he was always a little nuts."
Was the New York Times being provocative when they published it?
Are photos of a terrorist before they were a terrorist unpublishable?
I'll let this slide as you see it your way, I see it mine- but in my opinion- in an article about the roots of a terrorist, and where he came from, a photo of them before they became a terrorist is totally fair game. Add to it that when he was captured, the stories from Cambridge were universally, "he was the LAST person we ever would've expected this from." It's not like the Unibomber, where people were like, "oh yeah- he was always a little nuts."
I mean hard print has apparently been hard to sell...makes you wonder.
The shit looks like a model shoot.
Says something about how "unfitting" it is when there are regular customers in the Boston area that refuse to sell (when they are in the business of selling magazines). Shows you how personal it is. It's insensitive to say the least, and unnecessary.
I can understand why people are angry at Rolling Stone but the level of moral outrage is surprisingly (though Rootless' token wet blanket was not). I think it's also important to keep in mind that however the subhed starts, it's ends with Monster. The magazine is calling him a Monster. When the story first started breaking and my Twitter timeline got lit up with people talking about a terrorist on the cover, for whatever reason I assumed it was Snowden. Bigger-picture, though, while certain people are looking at his upbringing and how that could have led him the Boston bombing, I think everyone is mostly in agreement that he deserves whatever punishment that comes his way - all of the looks back at his childhood are background. He will get his due. He's an adult. Period.
IMO It would be different because Zimmerman got acquitted and there's millions of Zimmermans out there; the selling point would be the murder, not his story.
Posting that particular picture and prose tease on the cover is the old school version of 'link bait'....simple and plain...it isn't that complicated. Anyone who thinks it's anything other than trying to move units is quite literally lying to themselves...yall' know what Rolling Stone is trying to do as much as I do...if the story is good, the story is good but it doesn't change what they are trying to do with that cover.
No need for 5 pages of back and forth to ultimately see that.
Now, let's go get fucked up and maybe hit the "post in here only if your drunk" thread.
Would some of yall be ridin the fence if RS put Zimmerman on the cover?
Shit, the Fox News crowd would applaud it. He's a hero to them.
His story is much less interesting though- uncharasmatic, none too bright loser with no future becomes uncharasmatic, none too bright loser on Sean Hanity.
but seriously..... are they thinking that thousands of chechen teenage girls are putting dude up in their locker?
see, that's just it. thousands of teenage girls, not Chechen but US potential buyers of Rolling Stone are doing just that. that is what has many people outraged - the appearance that RS is pandering to exactly that audience:
but seriously..... are they thinking that thousands of chechen teenage girls are putting dude up in their locker?
see, that's just it. thousands of teenage girls, not Chechen but US potential buyers of Rolling Stone are doing just that. that is what has many people outraged - the appearance that RS is pandering to exactly that audience:
Well, that pretty much checkmates the "the photo was not in poor taste" argument. That's exactly what we need-kids who are already suffering the difficulties of adolescence using this guy as a sex symbol and role model. And if one of them acts out their now-reinforced fantasy of mass-murder as an outlet for their teenage frustrations? Does anyone here think that's the role of proper journalism?
That population is certainly being covered- the grand jury coverage had plenty of talk about the "We love Dzokhar," crowd at the federal courthouse. I heard it on NPR, saw it on CNN.
But, what is that percentage of the actual population? .00000000001%? Does responsible journalism have to worry about them? Might the media give disproportionate coverage to the pro-Dzokhar crowd because its sexy and interesting? More so than actually relevant? Every serial killer gets weirdo fan letters/prison marriages.
He is labeled a "monster," on the front cover. And, given the widespread praise for the depth of journalism accompanying the cover this debate seems overwrought.
Beating a dead horse...I saw the actual product at my local supermarket, and it's no different than tabloid fodder. Labeling someone "monster" is really on par with calling someone part of the "axis of evil". No reputable publisher does that.
It's not my kind of rhetoric but referring to a sociopath as a "monster" isn't all that uncommon and I think that it's a very valid question to ask what could turn a fairly good looking teen with at least a bit of a social life into a religiously motivated sociopath.
I have not read the article so I can't say if or how good of a piece it is but the cover obviously gets people to talk about this issue from another angle as the usually.
As illustrated by the Charlie Manson front page above this is far from being the first time that a sociopath is being turned into a pop star by some more or less "edgy" or just plain twisted people. Another example would be the German RAF that already at their times was admired as a revolutionary movement by the far left. In a couple of recent movies these murderous idiots were made to look like some sort of hipster revolutionaries. Check out a list of their victims which includes their own dead as well as killed civilians, military and police: http://www.rafinfo.de/opfer.php
There's a bunch more stuff I wanted to say but I have to go and cook lunch now.
It's not my kind of rhetoric but referring to a sociopath as a "monster" isn't all that uncommon and I think that it's a very valid question to ask what could turn a fairly good looking teen with at least a bit of a social life into a religiously motivated sociopath.
I have not read the article so I can't say if or how good of a piece it is but the cover obviously gets people to talk about this issue from another angle as the usually.
As illustrated by the Charlie Manson front page above this is far from being the first time that a sociopath is being turned into a pop star by some more or less "edgy" or just plain twisted people. Another example would be the German RAF that already at their times was admired as a revolutionary movement by the far left. Recently there movies were released that made these murderous idiots look like some hipster revolutionaries. Check out a list of their victims which includes their own dead as well as killed civilians, military and police: http://www.rafinfo.de/opfer.php
There's a bunch more stuff I wanted to say but I have to go and cook lunch now.
Well said. We should all go cook our metaphorical lunch and let this shit die. I've said my piece and so has the opposition. Let's move on.
Well said. We should all go cook our metaphorical lunch and let this shit die. I've said my piece and so has the opposition. Let's move on.
Wasn't said too well at all, I was running forth and back from kitchen to living room to type this shit. One of the points I was trying to make was that the Boston bombings were another islamistic motivated terror attack carried out by someone who was seemingly assimilated in (let's call it) "our" society and how maybe that is why "we" are so unwilling or afraid to give this person a human face.
In Europe quite a large number of recent islamistic terror attacks were carried out by converts of non-Arab decent. The question what makes someone turn his back to "our" society and attack "us" as civilians carries more than just practical significance as in "I don't want to get blown up". This should be reason to re-evaluate ourselves as a society and as individuals and the ways we interact with those who come from other cultural backgrounds.
I'll stop right here because we had a bottle of wine with our oxtail ragout with home made sp??tzle and slow-braised beets greens and right now we're in the middle of our afternoon cocktail but just one more thing: I find the public uproar about this front page more revealing than any article possibly could be and I think this leads to quite some issues that are worth being to be talked and thought about.
The question what makes someone turn his back to "our" society and attack "us" as civilians carries more than just practical significance as in "I don't want to get blown up". This should be reason to re-evaluate ourselves as a society and as individuals and the ways we interact with those who come from other cultural backgrounds.
Frank said:
I'll stop right here because we had a bottle of wine with our oxtail ragout with home made sp??tzle and slow-braised beets greens and right now we're in the middle of our afternoon cocktail...
The "outrage" over this cover is just the latest fake outrage in a long, tiresome string of fake outrages. This shitbag has been on the cover of endless newspapers, but it's an "outrage" because he shows up on a "music magazine" which is only worth reading now because of an occasional political or general journalism article?
Your opinions on this site have been rendered worthless.
Please remember this before you decide to post again
Comments
RS also ran covers of Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler but that's a much better example. I think the photo is valid.
Are photos of a terrorist before they were a terrorist unpublishable?
I'll let this slide as you see it your way, I see it mine- but in my opinion- in an article about the roots of a terrorist, and where he came from, a photo of them before they became a terrorist is totally fair game. Add to it that when he was captured, the stories from Cambridge were universally, "he was the LAST person we ever would've expected this from." It's not like the Unibomber, where people were like, "oh yeah- he was always a little nuts."
I mean hard print has apparently been hard to sell...makes you wonder.
The shit looks like a model shoot.
Says something about how "unfitting" it is when there are regular customers in the Boston area that refuse to sell (when they are in the business of selling magazines). Shows you how personal it is. It's insensitive to say the least, and unnecessary.
Dig up a sexy picture of Zimmerman and I'll let you know.
Nail on the head. All there is to it.
No need for 5 pages of back and forth to ultimately see that.
Now, let's go get fucked up and maybe hit the "post in here only if your drunk" thread.
too soon?
I'll definitely be there later.
Hahaha. Nice
Shit, the Fox News crowd would applaud it. He's a hero to them.
His story is much less interesting though- uncharasmatic, none too bright loser with no future becomes uncharasmatic, none too bright loser on Sean Hanity.
see, that's just it. thousands of teenage girls, not Chechen but US potential buyers of Rolling Stone are doing just that. that is what has many people outraged - the appearance that RS is pandering to exactly that audience:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/thousands-teen-girls-love-bombing-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-gush-social-media
Well, that pretty much checkmates the "the photo was not in poor taste" argument. That's exactly what we need-kids who are already suffering the difficulties of adolescence using this guy as a sex symbol and role model. And if one of them acts out their now-reinforced fantasy of mass-murder as an outlet for their teenage frustrations? Does anyone here think that's the role of proper journalism?
But, what is that percentage of the actual population? .00000000001%? Does responsible journalism have to worry about them? Might the media give disproportionate coverage to the pro-Dzokhar crowd because its sexy and interesting? More so than actually relevant? Every serial killer gets weirdo fan letters/prison marriages.
He is labeled a "monster," on the front cover. And, given the widespread praise for the depth of journalism accompanying the cover this debate seems overwrought.
His decision to change his name from Zimmerman to Dylan looking better than ever.
Beating a dead horse...I saw the actual product at my local supermarket, and it's no different than tabloid fodder. Labeling someone "monster" is really on par with calling someone part of the "axis of evil". No reputable publisher does that.
I have not read the article so I can't say if or how good of a piece it is but the cover obviously gets people to talk about this issue from another angle as the usually.
As illustrated by the Charlie Manson front page above this is far from being the first time that a sociopath is being turned into a pop star by some more or less "edgy" or just plain twisted people. Another example would be the German RAF that already at their times was admired as a revolutionary movement by the far left. In a couple of recent movies these murderous idiots were made to look like some sort of hipster revolutionaries. Check out a list of their victims which includes their own dead as well as killed civilians, military and police:
http://www.rafinfo.de/opfer.php
There's a bunch more stuff I wanted to say but I have to go and cook lunch now.
Well said. We should all go cook our metaphorical lunch and let this shit die. I've said my piece and so has the opposition. Let's move on.
This is moment of genius. Just wanted to acknowledge that.
Wasn't said too well at all, I was running forth and back from kitchen to living room to type this shit. One of the points I was trying to make was that the Boston bombings were another islamistic motivated terror attack carried out by someone who was seemingly assimilated in (let's call it) "our" society and how maybe that is why "we" are so unwilling or afraid to give this person a human face.
In Europe quite a large number of recent islamistic terror attacks were carried out by converts of non-Arab decent. The question what makes someone turn his back to "our" society and attack "us" as civilians carries more than just practical significance as in "I don't want to get blown up". This should be reason to re-evaluate ourselves as a society and as individuals and the ways we interact with those who come from other cultural backgrounds.
I'll stop right here because we had a bottle of wine with our oxtail ragout with home made sp??tzle and slow-braised beets greens and right now we're in the middle of our afternoon cocktail but just one more thing: I find the public uproar about this front page more revealing than any article possibly could be and I think this leads to quite some issues that are worth being to be talked and thought about.
Your opinions on this site have been rendered worthless.
Please remember this before you decide to post again
Yup - or rich, or famous.