Skip to main content

View Diary: Rolling Stone cover featuring Boston bomber draws anger, controversy (356 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OBL (9+ / 0-)

    was on quite a few magazine covers in the US, and that didn't glamorize terrorism.  When OJ was on magazine covers, during his trial, nobody refused to put the mags on their shelves.  Fox didn't howl about it.  And the magazine covers certainly didn't glamorize murder.

    On the other hand, this kid on the cover of Rolling Stone does look like he could be some new "downer rock" phenom.

    •  That would be true (5+ / 0-)

      for people who know nothing about the magazine, which I suspect so many people complaining don't. It's never been just about music.

      look like he could be some new "downer rock" phenom
      so could half of the population of this country that's under 20 ;)

      Hell, Rolling Stone ran a Charles Manson cover back in the day. Mind you, I was not as prone to paying attention to such minutiae as this, but I was still pretty up on current events even  then, and I don't remember a similar outbreak of outrage...

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:14:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Was Rolling Stone supposed to alter the picture (11+ / 0-)

      to make Tsarnaev look more menacing or something?  Not everyone who is evil looks deranged.  When did not manipulating an image to prove a point become glamorizing somebody?

      I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B. Anthony

      by bluestatesam on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:20:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why did they have to put his photo on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The cover?

        "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

        by freakofsociety on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:58:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because (7+ / 0-)

          1) it's a feature story, probably the biggest one in the mag
          2) it's relevant
          3) it shows him as a regular kid which is what he was before the bombing. He was not unlike a lot of American teens in a lot of ways.

          This is standard operating procedure for any magazine. Period.

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:49:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They didn't have to put his photo on (0+ / 0-)

            The cover. They should have known better. Sorry. You've not listed any reasons why they had to...

            "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

            by freakofsociety on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:26:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Controversy sells (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Larsstephens, freakofsociety

              more magazines.  Remember The New Yorker's terrorist fist bump cover?  

            •  Odd question (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I think you are saying that people should only do things that the have to do.  That seems odd to me.

            •  They can do what they want (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              claude, lyvwyr101

              it's their magazine. Whether they had to or not is not up to any of us to judge.

              (warning--general rant ahead, not directed directly at the person I'm responding to):

              God forbid that anyone gain additional perspective on a difficult situation without their precious feelings taking precedence.  "They should have known better...' Says who?

              Don't say it for everyone else. Say it to yourself. Be mad. Don't buy this magazine. Don't read this magazine. Don't. Ever. Fucking. Talk. About. This. Magazine. EVER. AGAIN. Nope. If you're that pissed off about this picture--that's run on the cover of other publications, and recently--you are done with Rolling Stone. For Good.

              So never, ever let me catch you "digging one of their future stories", next time they do one you agree with and/or admire. And they will, if you hang around here long enough.  

              The hysterical, self-righteousness uproar about This Cover is so unbelievably, jaw-droppingly stupid. Magazines have been putting terrorists on their cover for decades now. Why the fuck is this cover different?

              I'll tell you why...because this jumoke could be your next door neighbor and you're too chickenshit to deal with it because YOU would have to start examining some real unpleasant truths about your country.

              REALITY CHECK

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:40:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Jesus... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Why rant?  One can still like Rolling Stone Magazine and object to the decision to put this photo on the cover.  And what is so reprehensible about considering the feelings of people affected by this kid's actions?  

                Of course Rolling Stone can do whatever they want.  It is their magazine.  However, readers can also do what they want and complain about or stop reading the magazine.  It's a two way street.  

                "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                by Triscula on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:44:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I understand the journalism (0+ / 0-)

            is considered an honest look at what turns a person into the kind of person he became.

            His picture on the cover did not bother me because we put Charles Manson---Tim McVeigh---Ted Kaczinski---and so many others on the covers of magazines.

            Who are we kidding?

            The outrage smacks of hypocrisy----and is profoundly insincere---to boot.

            When the media is silenced due to public backlash---in this country---especially---it doesn't really matter that much---because we don't really have many outlets for actual journalism---anyway.

            Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick released a statement where he said--paraphrasing: 'While the picture was/may have been in poor taste----the journalism contained in the article was top-notch.'

            Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

            by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:15:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Choose another picture (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Be Skeptical

        This is the only one picture that I've seen that makes him look alluring.  How about the picture of him in NYC with his friends.
        Or a collage of pictures that shows he virtually never smiled?

    •  OBL always had his turban on and OJ was black (11+ / 0-)

      This kid looking like this means you can't tell right away who is "bad" and who isn't.  That scares a whole lot of people.

      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

      by PsychoSavannah on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:28:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSPS owl

        you're probably onto something with that. He's more threatening than any "Real Terrorist", because he was essentially raised in the US and looks completely nondescript.

        It's a real great argument to improve our education system and get the damned propaganda off our medias, that today's Americans appear to have little to no capacity for the nuance needed to mentally process something like this.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:52:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! My sentiment exactly! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Dhjokhar T. looks like the kid next door. Sweet, smiling face.

          Now, all we have to do is figure out WTF he would do something like this. Hideous, horrible, indiscriminate violence against people he did NOT know. Absolutely unbelievable to 99.99% of us.

          What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. King Henry, scene ii

          by TerryDarc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:58:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That was probably the point. n/t. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Currently reading: Path To A Better World: A Plan for Prosperity, Opportunity, and Economic Justice by James Aldus

        by Aramis Wyler on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:50:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site