Hoss Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 http://abcnews.go.co...19151271&page=2 'Mounting Evidence' Boston Bombers Involved in 2011 Triple Murder So where does Aaron Hernandez come into all of this? Latest Issue of Rolling Stone has the surviving Boston Marathon Bomber on the Cover. CVS refuses to sell the issue. http://www.forbes.co...-boston-bomber/ That whole deal is so disgusting. They can't deny that putting him on the cover was a ###### attempt to sell magazines and that it glorifies a murderer.
Stoner Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 That whole deal is so disgusting. They can't deny that putting him on the cover was a ###### attempt to sell magazines and that it glorifies a murderer. Why? Cuz he's cute? Aren't you a journalism major?
darksabre Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Rolling Stone used to be provocative. Now it's just lame.
Hoss Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Why? Cuz he's cute? Aren't you a journalism major? I have no idea what the "cute" comment is about... But to the last question: Yeap. And I support a lot of "out there" things that people will do to get a story out... But not this.
Eleven Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Latest Issue of Rolling Stone has the surviving Boston Marathon Bomber on the Cover. CVS refuses to sell the issue. http://www.forbes.co...-boston-bomber/ I don't understand the outrage over this. First, the cover explains that the article is about "how...[he] became a monster." Not exactly an honorific. Second, we should be interested in knowing how people like this become monsters. This will be the first issue of RS that I've bought since college. I don't get how people think that putting a criminal on the cover of a magazine somehow turns the criminal into an idol. He's not. But the story is about him.
LastPommerFan Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I don't understand the outrage over this. First, the cover explains that the article is about "how...[he] became a monster." Not exactly an honorific. Second, we should be interested in knowing how people like this become monsters. This will be the first issue of RS that I've bought since college. I don't get how people think that putting a criminal on the cover of a magazine somehow turns the criminal into an idol. He's not. But the story is about him. They could have put his mugshot. They instead put a flattering portrait. They wanted exactly this reaction because no one buys print anymore. Look at the bold, it worked.
Eleven Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 They could have put his mugshot. They instead put a flattering portrait. They wanted exactly this reaction because no one buys print anymore. Look at the bold, it worked. Please. How many of America's enemies have ended up on magazine covers? And the pictures are not always unflattering. Moreover, what "worked" is the outrage over it; I never would have known about this article if not for the amazing amount of facebook posts, etc. concerning it. It's not like I go to the magazine rack every two weeks to see who's on the cover of Rolling Stone.
LastPommerFan Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Please. How many of America's enemies have ended up on magazine covers? And the pictures are not always unflattering. Moreover, what "worked" is the outrage over it; I never would have known about this article if not for the amazing amount of facebook posts, etc. concerning it. It's not like I go to the magazine rack every two weeks to see who's on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sorry, that's what I meant. Outrage sells magazines. Best selling issue of Time last year was the one with the Mom Breastfeeding her toddler.
K-9 Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I don't understand the outrage over this. First, the cover explains that the article is about "how...[he] became a monster." Not exactly an honorific. Second, we should be interested in knowing how people like this become monsters. This will be the first issue of RS that I've bought since college. I don't get how people think that putting a criminal on the cover of a magazine somehow turns the criminal into an idol. He's not. But the story is about him. Well stated. Reminds me of when TIME made Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini their 'Man of the Year' for 1979 and splashed his face on their cover. There was palpable outrage by those that didn't appreciate the context. I haven't read the RS story yet, but my hunch is that you're right about the contrast they tried to create between the image on the cover and the image of a monster.
Stoner Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I have no idea what the "cute" comment is about... But to the last question: Yeap. And I support a lot of "out there" things that people will do to get a story out... But not this. How did it glorify him? Because he looks like a teen idol? I don't get it. Did you read the subhead? It pretty clearly explains what the story is all about. How did an All-American kid become, allegedly, a terrorist?
shrader Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 How many newspapers were sold using the image of the brothers? Why is that any different? I'll reserve my judgement of the magazine until I read the story. And since I'm never going to read it, I'm not going to crucify them.
Stoner Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 How many newspapers were sold using the image of the brothers? Why is that any different? I'll reserve my judgement of the magazine until I read the story. And since I'm never going to read it, I'm not going to crucify them. A lot of the reaction is ignorance about Rolling Stone. The magazine does a lot of serious journalism unrelated to music, but some people might look at that cover and assume the alleged bomber is getting the same treatment as Bieber.
Hoss Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 How many newspapers were sold using the image of the brothers? Why is that any different? I'll reserve my judgement of the magazine until I read the story. And since I'm never going to read it, I'm not going to crucify them. If you can't SEE the difference, then there's nothing left to be said. If the newspapers had his head blown up to cover the front page, then I'd have an issue with it. A lot of the reaction is ignorance about Rolling Stone. The magazine does a lot of serious journalism unrelated to music, but some people might look at that cover and assume the alleged bomber is getting the same treatment as Bieber. I used to read Rolling Stone. I know they do a lot of hard-hitting journalism unrelated to music. But this isn't okay. It's motivation for the next generation of psychopaths. I've always believed that the killer should be presented as a backstory almost. Just mentioned and then moved on from. The victims are the real story. But let's ignore them...
LastPommerFan Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I used to read Rolling Stone. I know they do a lot of hard-hitting journalism unrelated to music. But this isn't okay. It's motivation for the next generation of psychopaths. I've always believed that the killer should be presented as a backstory almost. Just mentioned and then moved on from. The victims are the real story. But let's ignore them... I disagree. How this high school student went from 0 to terrorist in 3-4 years is a really important story.
... Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Face it, if the cover offends you, then you're clearly unsophisticated, stupid, backwards, and belong in a shack in the hills of Tennessee tending to your one good tooth and corn cob pipe. It's cool to find as many ways as possible to sneer at the offended. Conform and join the new normal by discarding your personal reaction for the reaction all the "in" people have.
thesportsbuff Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 personally i don't have a problem with the magazine cover, altho I can see why some people would disagree. it's just news to me. no different than using his photo on the TV and other news sources. i would read this article about how an innocent young boy turned into a terrorist 100x over before i read about what so&so celebrity wore to a millionaires convention last tuesday, which for some reason is all i seem to see on yahoo anymore, so i guess i don't have a problem with the photo they use as long as it's information worth reading.
LastPommerFan Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Face it, if the cover offends you, then you're clearly unsophisticated, stupid, backwards, and belong in a shack in the hills of Tennessee tending to your one good tooth and corn cob pipe. It's cool to find as many ways as possible to sneer at the offended. Conform and join the new normal by discarding your personal reaction for the reaction all the "in" people have. Kinda like the reaction people have to your ridiculous avatar?
Weave Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 I've seen more disgusting magazine covers. The Time Magazine cover with the heavily doctored OJ image immediately comes to mind. Lets face it, mainstream media will go to immoral lengths to get your attention. I guess I am about numb to it because this cover barely registered for me.
2ForTripping Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 I've seen more disgusting magazine covers. The Time Magazine cover with the heavily doctored OJ image immediately comes to mind. Lets face it, mainstream media will go to immoral lengths to get your attention. I guess I am about numb to it because this cover barely registered for me. "...every half an hour someone naked and disfigured,,,, nothings shocking..."
JJFIVEOH Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 I don't go out of my way to buy Rolling Stone, but I will now.
shrader Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 If you can't SEE the difference, then there's nothing left to be said. If the newspapers had his head blown up to cover the front page, then I'd have an issue with it. I used to read Rolling Stone. I know they do a lot of hard-hitting journalism unrelated to music. But this isn't okay. It's motivation for the next generation of psychopaths. I've always believed that the killer should be presented as a backstory almost. Just mentioned and then moved on from. The victims are the real story. But let's ignore them... Did you read this one?
K-9 Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 Face it, if the cover offends you, then you're clearly unsophisticated, stupid, backwards, and belong in a shack in the hills of Tennessee tending to your one good tooth and corn cob pipe. It's cool to find as many ways as possible to sneer at the offended. Conform and join the new normal by discarding your personal reaction for the reaction all the "in" people have. Like you haven't sneered at those that were offended by things you found perfectly acceptable.
SwampD Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 I won't buy it (I wasn't going to anyway) and I am not offended by it, but I completely understand why someone would be. It's irresponsible. There is no doubt that that cover makes him look cool (if I had no idea who he was, I could easily believe that he was the lead singer in an up and coming group). If some young disenfranchised reader, who's got nothing else going on in his life sees that such an awful act can get you on the cover of Rolling Stone, who knows what they might do?
... Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 I won't buy it (I wasn't going to anyway) and I am not offended by it, but I completely understand why someone would be. It's irresponsible. There is no doubt that that cover makes him look cool (if I had no idea who he was, I could easily believe that he was the lead singer in an up and coming group). If some young disenfranchised reader, who's got nothing else going on in his life sees that such an awful act can get you on the cover of Rolling Stone, who knows what they might do? Why do we fight sometimes?
SwampD Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 Why do we fight sometimes? Cuz we care. And we don't fight, we,… um,… discuss.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.