Rolling Stone... wtf

Posted by: NucleusG4

Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 06:49 AM

Are you serious? Bad taste... very bad taste.

http://now.msn.com/rolling-stone-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-cover-criticized?ocid=ansnow11
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 09:11 AM


.Indeed.
Encouraging impressionable kids to emulate
someone who'd murder and mutilate innocent
people thus gaining cover-boy status, as if
putting it on par with acceptable forms of
entertainment sends a dangerous message...
.AFAIC.

Posted by: DLC

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 09:18 AM

Editor must be on some BAD drugs !! mad
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 10:47 AM

It's their feature story about how he became radicalized. Are they supposed to use a picture of Cheerios? Seriously, there are way more important things to be outraged about. Are we really that shallow?
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 10:52 AM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
It's their feature story about how he became radicalized. Are they supposed to use a picture of Cheerios? Seriously, there are way more important things to be outraged about. Are we really that shallow?


Gee.. I dunno... did they have to use a glam shot?
This would NOT induce me to pick up this rag.

Why not insert this shot on top of the bloody aftermath shot of the blood soaked street.

Outraged... not.
Shocked at RS.. yes.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 11:26 AM

From what I've heard, the thesis of the article is that the average boy next door who doesn't look terrifying and might be something of a hunk is as liable to become a terrorist as the stereotypical terrorist thug. So the glam shot is probably an intentional part of the article's point.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 11:45 AM

Apparently it's not a glam shot but a selfie ... so a nice photo, but apparently not anything from a pro.

But yeah, what I get from the cover (and not having read the article) is how even "normal" people can become radicalized.
Posted by: Pirate

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 12:08 PM

What ever happened to the old Rolling Stone of my day...about music and music related subjects...now it is just another everyday just like every one else magazine
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 12:08 PM

Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Why not insert this shot on top of the bloody aftermath shot of the blood soaked street.


Then it would be The National Enquirer.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 12:24 PM

Now you gotta read RS for the articles. smile
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 12:51 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Apparently it's not a glam shot but a selfie ... so a nice photo, but apparently not anything from a pro.

But yeah, what I get from the cover (and not having read the article) is how even "normal" people can become radicalized.


Ya.. I got that. The pulled it from his FB account. By glam shot.. I don't mean "done by a professional"... but a shot that helps to glamorize him. Which...IMO... this photo does.
This isn't the photo of him running away from the bomb site... or a mug shot. This makes him sweet and cute and cuddly.

But, hey.... for all of you that don't have any issue with this issue... go and read it.
Not me though.
Posted by: John Rougeux

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 01:08 PM

Putting him on the cover of the RS issue does glamorize him and no doubt people who think what he did was "cool" (and trust me, I am sure there are those types out there) will think that maybe if THeY did something then they too can get on the cover of RS. Most probably won't read the article but instead just the photo.

Don't give these guys any more publicity than what they have. Why not put a Facebook type blank face & have the article about how "anyone" can be the next "one" or whatever the article is supposed to be about.

Worst thing for terrorists as far they are concerned (and this is strictly my guess) is to not even mention their name again. Lock them up in a dark hole somewhere and let society forget them.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 01:33 PM

Wonkette's take

Yep!
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 02:02 PM

?
You found an article written from a pro RS stand point. Congrats!

Yep!

However you slice it... I think the majority of people are against this....

In any case... I have made my position clear... I think it was in bad taste.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 02:06 PM

I guess Agassi was right. Only "image is everything." *smh*
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 02:52 PM

I'm not picking on you or anyone else. Just trying to point out the silliness of the whole negative reaction to the cover photo while ignoring the content/context. Should they have photoshopped him to look more like Charles Manson? Wearing a turban?
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
I'm not picking on you or anyone else. Just trying to point out the silliness of the whole negative reaction to the cover photo while ignoring the content/context. Should they have photoshopped him to look more like Charles Manson? Wearing a turban?


I guess you missed this..

Quote:
Ya.. I got that. The pulled it from his FB account. By glam shot.. I don't mean "done by a professional"... but a shot that helps to glamorize him. Which...IMO... this photo does.
This isn't the photo of him running away from the bomb site... or a mug shot. This makes him sweet and cute and cuddly.


I don't care if they bash the sh!t out of him in the article... it's pure sensationalism.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 03:20 PM

It would be sensationalism if they placed it over the death and destruction he caused. The photo is in keeping with RS's cover style. Just because he never looked like what we perceive a terrorist to look like doesn't mean it's offensive. He looked like a pretty normal young man. I think that's the image they wanted to portray. Not all terrorists are creepy, crazed old men.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 04:17 PM

I hear what you are saying.. and I appreciate that someone plays devils advocate.
But upon checking articles' comment sections and Rolling Stones FB page... I don't think very many people have your stance on this issue.
Not that the majority means they're right.... just that a large demographic finds this offensive.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 04:19 PM

LOL.. no one requires a terrorist to wear a turban or be old and creepy. That's you who are painting that picture....
Posted by: MrB

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 07:37 PM

I agree about the style of picture. Put something less attractive on.

Dave
Posted by: garyW

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/17/13 10:45 PM

Lawrence O'Donnell had a righteous takedown of Rolling Stone tonight:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/52504873


Posted by: John Rougeux

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/18/13 04:21 AM

But...but...the story tells...uh, no it doesn't apparently. Thanks for the link. Confirms what I said.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/18/13 05:55 AM


Great Take on the Topic

however
pulling the issue from the market has a secondary
negative effect of ratcheting the cover to the
next level: That of "A COLLECTOR'S ITEM". smirk

BTW
The Next Topic in that link
is too hilarious to miss! laugh
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Rolling Stone... wtf - 07/18/13 06:00 AM

+1