Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-07-2013, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2013 06:34 PM by amyb.)
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
(20-07-2013 05:50 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Grover Norquist actually had a good point on Bill Maher last night... Time put Hitler and Stalin on their cover.

I think it was slightly tasteless but Rollings Stones niche is not taste it's always been about questioning authority and preconceptions... It was a real photo (not doctored) and they wanted to highlight the fact that he was just some kid who you might have been friends with before he went all islamofundee.
This.

And Rolling Stone put Charles Manson on the cover forty-some years ago. It also covers news. I don't see the problem with having him on the cover, since it's a news story. I don't even see it as "tasteless," actually. They run a high profile news story, and they put a photo of someone involved in that story. Would people rather have gruesome photos of the victims or something? Or ignore the story entirely?

I honestly don't understand why this is controversial? Is the picture not "evil" enough for people? It calls him a "monster" on the cover, I don't see how that "glamorizes" him.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like amyb's post
20-07-2013, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2013 07:32 PM by LadyJane.)
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
I am not saying we shouldn't talk about this. This approach is not a good answer though.

Hitler, Stalin and Charles Manson were not from this new world we are in. They weren't a part of this new fame-currency I'm speaking about. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was literally tweeting to 'fans' as he tried to evade police. He was a celebrity within hours, literally an overnight celebrity. Our world is smaller through social media and our population is bigger. People want a piece of the "I'm important" pie.

I am not saying we don't need to address the issue of how Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got where he is, I am not saying we need to throw up 'gruesome' pictures of the victims to bring the trauma to our attention- why not strong, recovering and beautiful photos? I highlighted Malala to exemplify how she stood up and tried to solve a problem in action and how the three hostage survivors resolved themselves in the aftermath. But even if we want to talk about just the culprit, there are other ways to make a cover than a photo of a face that covers every news stand and reaches mailboxes world wide, splashing itself on television in controversy coupled with stardom in 2013.

This is not a simple situation that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got himself into, and I am not saying the article is wrong. I also understand the victim he is is very valid. I worked hand on counselling murders and rapist who were youth, and I counselled them in the position they are victims. I agree no one is born evil (or good). We are, with a bit of biological input, a product of our environments very much and I understand this.

Despite all this, however, it is very important to recognize the 'front cover' vs. information, because as much as a lot of us understand the difference and don't buy into the sensationalism, it clearly takes one individual who cannot differentiate between the two and be pulled into celebrity profiling of a murderer in the 21st century. It's a valid component to the bigger picture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 07:44 PM
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
True dat, and I agree with everything Lady Jane said in the above post. Certainly, there are other aspects, and there has been too much focus on this guy in particular. And I've seen things elsewhere about how little girls think he's cute and he's attained a sort of cult status for this.

But I think it's also how the media machine works. I'm not defending it so much as saying that's what I'd expect them to put on the cover, because the cover is what generates sales from nonsubscribers. And to generate sales, it helps to either be of a really famous popstar, or something controversial. (I can't comment on the article, I stopped subscribing to RS more than 10 years ago, but I can say that they did sometimes have interesting news/current events stories then.)

As for fame/infamy in recent years, I dunno. There have always been people who glorified those they viewed as nonconformists (and failed to differentiate between that and say, murderers). Despite Twitter and so on, I don't think it's that much difference from the cult following of people like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson, or Richard Ramirez, it's just done differently and faster growing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 06:13 AM
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
Meh. Magazines are so last century. Unless they have Gwynnies. Heart

As for the other stuff, it's a greedy-assed scum-sucking corporation like any other greedy-assed scum-sucking corporation, and controversy sells.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
21-07-2013, 06:36 AM
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
(20-07-2013 04:19 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Dafuq? Cheap, go home you're drunk. Great excuse CTS...the breeze did it...

I really really hope this is a joke. Big Grin

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
21-07-2013, 06:53 AM
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
(20-07-2013 04:09 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  Shame on Rolling Stone. I'd be at the least sending a letter if I had bought a subscription.

In this new world we live in, as important and noticeable as money and power are, there is a growing trend in a different currency, which is celebrity-ism. People want to be remembered as somebody. Especially people my generation and younger. (Not saying all people, but many.) In one of Seth's latest podcast about aging, a young listener wrote in about it, saying they wanted to die not as a joe-shmoe who is forgotten but as someone who's memory lives on. People are dying in the name of it. One of the quickest ways to get noticed is to kill for it. It has been mentioned and I believe there is truth to the killing rampages around the world, these people are being remembered, they are famous. Especially in the US where the media sensationalizes everything for entertainment. Rolling Stone just added fuel to the next person's burning desire to make a name in an immoral decision, they have chosen a side by 'faming' someone in their front cover. I'd rather see Malala Yousafzai on the cover, and hear her gripping interview. Rolling Stone should have chose a hero to fame, not a low life.

I'm going to argue FOR the Tzarnaev's photo on the cover. I believe the synopsis of the article was how does some clean cut home grown kid do something so awful? It's not a new concept. We asked similar questions about Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, etc. I see nothing wrong with it. I see that picture and say. "Yeah he looks like a cool hipster........pity he's a fucking murderer as well."

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
21-07-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
I think Charles Manson would have been able to accelerate his "celebrity" if he had had the technology DT has.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 03:16 PM
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
(20-07-2013 05:50 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Grover Norquist actually had a good point on Bill Maher last night... Time put Hitler and Stalin on their cover.

I think it was slightly tasteless but Rollings Stones niche is not taste it's always been about questioning authority and preconceptions... It was a real photo (not doctored) and they wanted to highlight the fact that he was just some kid who you might have been friends with before he went all islamofundee.

One of the few times in his life that Norquist ever had a good point.

A picture is not an endorsement. How many times must we see that the Adam Lanzas, Dylan Klebolds and Eric Harrises of the world do not "look" like wild-eyed maniacs before we start to get the fucking hint?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
(21-07-2013 02:59 PM)Gallstones Wrote:  I think Charles Manson would have been able to accelerate his "celebrity" if he had had the technology DT has.

Can you imagine Manson on Facebook and Tunblr?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 04:49 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2013 04:58 PM by Julius.)
RE: Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber
Only a Douchebag would let the current cover of the Rolling Stone upset them....and it appears that we have a lot of Douchbags here in the good 'ole US of A!

To assume that this cover somehow glamorizes the bomber is beyond me. What? Can't people fuckin' read? Where was the glamorization? And how the hell did the Rolling Stone do anything different than the New York Times when the Times put the same Photo on its front page?

Well, I admit there is one huge difference between the New York Times and the Rolling Stone. See the Rolling Stone practices long-form investigative journalism. The New York Times is nothing but "Fluff and Cotton Candy" for the brain-dead.

And this is why I'm especially peeved about the Douchbags who malign the Rolling Stone. I mean, one of the last Bastions of credible, investigative journalism is under attack - by people who obviously don't read!!!!

Douchebags...that's all they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: