Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  'having someone on your cover' and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    melfunction, kpardue, erush1345

    presenting someone in a manner so stylish it looks like a headshot for a high profile acting gig

    are not the same thing.  One is news--one is sensationalism.

    •  you've made your view known. I hope you don't (5+ / 0-)

      respond to everyone with this same content. It will limit the dialogue. Thank you.

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

      by UnaSpenser on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:54:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm suprised at you. You are usually a (4+ / 0-)

        reasonable and interesting commenter who I often enjoy reading.

        This strikes me as uncharacteristically defensive and unwilling to engage.  

        If you want to ban me from your diary for expressing a (fairly common) view in a few different forms (i.e. comments) go right ahead--I'll leave.  But I have lost a bit of respect.

        ciao.

        •  I'm not trying to ban you. I'd like to see other (4+ / 0-)

          points being made and not be hitting the same point over and over.

          I'm trying to limit my comments because i feel I've said what I had to say and I'd like to hear what others have to offer. Drumming the same point home again and again can tend to limit dialogue as people look at the comment thread, see the same people making the same points and feel it's tedious.

          I didn't mean to make you feel unwelcome. I'm awfully sorry if I did that and wasn't gracious enough in expressing what I was intending. Please forgive me.

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

          by UnaSpenser on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:06:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no worries---i had a bunch of thoughts in my (5+ / 0-)

            head so was a bit insistent w/the comments.  (usually happens with these socio-cultural topics)

            it is a good discussion.

            There is actually a piece in politico (which is pro-cover) that shows the NYTimes and RS depictions next to each other...which I thought was interesting.  Some see them as completely different treatments (like me)  some don't (like Politico)

            Photos

            •  thanks for the link. and for continuing the (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              melfunction, Odysseus, churchylafemme

              conversation.

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

              by UnaSpenser on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:24:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  interesting on the photo: I see zoomed and (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Debby, murrayewv

              darkened for more clarity on the RS cover. But not much else different.

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

              by UnaSpenser on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:25:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's what I see, too. The difference to me (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                UnaSpenser, NancyK

                is a bit like, say, newsroom lighting vs. soap-opera (softer) lighting.  Image is the same, but the way we think about it can bedifferent.

                I guess an interesting question would be if the NY Times image were on the Stone as is (maybe only cropped for spacing)  would the outcry be the same?  It might--if people are simply feeling that he should be portrayed in the worst possible light (i.e. as a criminal).  But the fact that the NY Times image didn't seem to upset people (beyond the incident itself, obviously) does suggest to me that the 'affect' of the image (within the context of RS's stylistic parameters) is what got to people more than simply the person himself.

                •  The cropping (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bevenro, erush1345

                  combined with the titles around the outside serve to bring the focus more clearly to his (rather pretty) face.  It's much more fashion-magazine cover/model head shot/glam shot looking than the original rather neutral photograph.  And then there's the rock-and-roll-bad-boy connotations that come from being the cover photograph of Rolling Stone in the first place.

                  I don't find the disparity in reactions surprising or hypocritical.

                  Also more inclined to your view than the opposite overall.  I don't want to look at him, and I especially don't want to see him presented so overtly as something appealing.  I wonder if part of it has to do with my aversion to focus on the perpetrators of horrible crimes overall.  I'd just as soon their names were forgotten, that no media outlet would ever speak of them again.

                  •  the different pictures..... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    erush1345

                    of this young man were interesting.  The video from the scene made him look like a nonchalant kid, ambling through the crowd behind his brother.  this was the best looking picture of him.  I think the Rolling Stone reaction is overdone, but it shows how raw the emotions in Boston are.  He and his brother crippled so many young healthy people.  The saddest part is that this goes on around the world and this is the first time we are really experiencing the horrible power of these bombs.

                    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                    by murrayewv on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:38:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, I'm looking forward to reading the (3+ / 0-)

      article. Rolling Stone is one of the few mags left that does rich journalism.

      Since I've only seen the cover, I'm not going to judge yet. I'd be surprised if it's not a thought-provoking and well-researched article. Sure, they probably knew it would be controversial to some, but we've gotten to a point in society where we hyperventilate about anything that makes us slightly uncomfortable.

      On the other hand, I never had an interest in reading the TIME issue with the woman nursing a small boy. I haven't read TIME in ages, but that's beside the point.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:04:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would expect a solid article (and I hear it's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BoiseBlue

        well written). I haven't gotten around to reading it yet (my responses are on the image alone) but will try to get to it tonite or tomorrow.

        The image will definitely increase readership...

        •  the article is very good. a bit chilling. because (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus

          everyone is just left devastated.

          One part that is very touching is that his friends all wanted to be anonymous (pseudonyms are used) because they don't want to be harassed and because they don't want to deny that they are his friends. Current tense.

          They were relieved to learn that he cried for two days in the hospital.

          But then, there is a very appropriate line in the article.....

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

          by UnaSpenser on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:41:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well given the proliferation of selfies... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Debby, AoT

      You better get used to this being the style du jour for tyrants, terrorists and teases of all stripes.

      I find these objections to have the same validity at those criticizing Rachel Jeantel for looking "bad" on tv. Just another example of how our society wants to see images in black and white even when the pixels are in color.

      •  there are many reasons for the objections. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        Some of them maybe because, as you suggest, people want to see images that conform to people's preconceived notions.  There are many other reasons as well.  

        But frankly I don't see a major issue with people, particularly Bostonians, who would prefer a more straightforward portrayal (I don't mean more criminal--I mean less glossy) of a person who hurt many of them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site