Skip to main content

View Diary: His 'sexiness' scares the hell out of us. (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think that's it at all. I'm going to (7+ / 0-)

    include a comment from another thread...

    As with a magazine like 'Vogue' (which sometimes has excellent stories as well),

    By virtue of being on the cover, you are granted all the expertise of the best photo/image editors, get a stylistic appeal that goes above and beyond the original image, and by virtue of that gain instant celebrity status.

    I agree with those who say that the image DOES glorify him it depicts him as a rock star--the terms 'terrorist' 'monster' 'bomber' notwithstanding.  The picture is what you see--not the words.  And the magazine editors know this.

    Sure, some criminals are good looking.  But the RS put every resource in its disposal to make sure that this photo was of the highest stylistic standard worthy of every other 'celebrity' they put on its cover.

    That's what annoys me.

    •  its exactly the photo the Daily News used and (5+ / 0-)

      it's exactly the photo he had in his facebook profile:

      Building Community. Creating Jobs. Donating Art to Community Organizations. Support the Katalogue

      by UnaSpenser on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:39:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  doesn't matter--there's always image editing. (5+ / 0-)

        shadowing, lighting, cropping (and of course someone is likely to use the best possible image in a fb photo).  The NY Daily News version is quite a bit lower-key(without the RS treatment)--the RS one looks exactly like a head-shot for an acting gig.

        But it's not just the picture--it's the whole presentation.  He does, indeed, get the Rolling Stone treatment.

        Look, Una--can you honestly tell me that the rationale behind RS's cover was NOT to present him as an indie-rock star?

        •  They just reframed the image (0+ / 0-)

          for the rolling stone cover, from what I can tell. The original still has the same feel. Which isn't to say anything about putting him on the cover in the first place. People seem to be outraged because he wasn't properly demonized.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:53:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. In retrospect, I don't know why I (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bevenro, greengemini, Odysseus, erush1345

      Felt compelled to diary this last night--it's not that big a deal in the scheme of things. But it remains true that the cover of Rolling Stone (not the words inside) is perhaps the most significant index of sexy hotness in the media. I object on that ground, and because it seems like a pointlessly shitty thing to do to the victims.

      I think cleverness is valued above decency by many, which is a shame. There is an important point to be made about how a "normal" stoner kid becomes a terrorist--I just think the teen idol coverboy shot was a very bad editorial decision.

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:43:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site