Rolling Stone labeled a 'total disgrace' for decision to make the Boston bombing suspect its cover

[bangarang]

Colbert show comment:

Time to start a BOYCOTT of Rolling Stone.

First step: find someone who was already buying Rolling Stone.

LoL.. .seriously... does anyone buy subscriptions to magazines anymore? I know for myself I get all my content online. I feel like the only time I see magazines is when I am waiting at the dentist or when im waiting to get my hair cut.

[F430murci]

So very true:

"The number of people who never read Rolling Stone who buy this issue will outnumber the people who boycott it," said Bob Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University.

He said it stirred up emotions because people like to think of terrorists and criminals as inhuman monsters. "That cover made him look human, like us, and that makes people nervous," said Thompson. "If they had used the police mug-shot, there would be no issue.

"Some bad publicity can be very useful," said Thompson.

[F430murci]

Boycotting a magazine is a little like boycotting the wind. It will be gone in a flash and then what do you do?

Yep, just add it to the list with Florida, the Olympics and orange juice.

[F430murci]

As a professional law-enforcement officer of 25 years, I believe that the image that was portrayed by Rolling Stone magazine was an insult to any person who has every worn a uniform of any color or any police organization or military branch, and the family members who have ever lost a loved one serving in the line of duty, he said. The truth is that glamorizing the face of terror is not just insulting to the family members of those killed in the line of duty, it also could be an incentive to those who may be unstable to do something to get their face on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/massachusetts-state-police-sgt-sean-murphy-relieved-of-duty/

[geriatrickid]

There is a double standard displayed. RS isn't the first to have an "image" labeled offensive. Conservative magazines use a Taliban terrorist, a 9/11 image and convicted criminal OJ Simpson. No one complains.

[geriatrickid]

They should have used this pic on the cover:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2369810/Dzohokhar-Tsarnaev-pictures-Dramatic-new-pictures-moment-Boston-Bomber-Dzohokhar-Tsarnaev-emerged-boat.html

Sadly, such an image will only encourage sympathy from his mentally imbalanced group of fans.

[geriatrickid]

I think it's OK.

He's a terrorist.

He also looks hot.

Yes, he'll be real popular in prison if they ever let him mingle with the other prisoners.

1. The actual images of the accused are not "hot". The pictures of him in his apartment with his friends suggest a dirty guy not given to clean clothing, hygiene or good grooming. Mind you, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Therein lies a subtext to this drama, the number of fansites created with pictures taken when he was a doe eyed kid. He isn't and hasn't been for quite some time.

2. If convicted, he will be in segregation, isolated from other prisoners perhaps allowed out of his barren concrete cell a few times a week to walk around in a fenced enclosure for less than an hour. That's assuming he is not executed.

I think he should be obliged to meet some of the survivors every week and he should listen to the impact of his actions. The problem with these terrorists/murderers is that they never have to attach the humans they have maimed or killed to their actions.

[mopar71]

There is a double standard displayed. RS isn't the first to have an "image" labeled offensive. Conservative magazines use a Taliban terrorist, a 9/11 image and convicted criminal OJ Simpson. No one complains.

? Time and Newsweek aren't/weren't Conservative magazines.

[maanoi]

Has he admitted to the bombing? What happend to innocent until proven guilty.

If he does by some miricle get off the charges then i assume he will be able to sue rolling stone????

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

There is a double standard displayed. RS isn't the first to have an "image" labeled offensive. Conservative magazines use a Taliban terrorist, a 9/11 image and convicted criminal OJ Simpson. No one complains.

? Time and Newsweek aren't/weren't Conservative magazines.

They are news magazines. Rolling Stone is supposed to be an entertainment magazine, which is why folks are outraged.

[Exsexyman]

I think it's OK.

He's a terrorist.

He also looks hot.

Yes, he'll be real popular in prison if they ever let him mingle with the other prisoners.

1. The actual images of the accused are not "hot". The pictures of him in his apartment with his friends suggest a dirty guy not given to clean clothing, hygiene or good grooming. Mind you, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Therein lies a subtext to this drama, the number of fansites created with pictures taken when he was a doe eyed kid. He isn't and hasn't been for quite some time.

2. If convicted, he will be in segregation, isolated from other prisoners perhaps allowed out of his barren concrete cell a few times a week to walk around in a fenced enclosure for less than an hour. That's assuming he is not executed.

I think he should be obliged to meet some of the survivors every week and he should listen to the impact of his actions. The problem with these terrorists/murderers is that they never have to attach the humans they have maimed or killed to their actions.

Spot on GK, sums it up perfectly. Great post. JT previously referred to him as "Boy Band Terrorist", it is quite obvious that he fancies him, i think he might be a little confused as to where his loyalties lie! Torn between his loyalty to the USA, and his lust for this 'pretty boy'. My daughter, (who was totally disgusted by the actions of this "Boy band terrorist", also said, "but he is so good looking, what a waste'. If he is found guilty i hope he is not executed, but made to meet the survivors as you suggest. I'm sure that he was led astray, brainwashed. whatever, by peers who are the real guilty parties, who we all know will never be called to account. They never are. It was ever thus.

[SteeleJoe]

There is a double standard displayed. RS isn't the first to have an "image" labeled offensive. Conservative magazines use a Taliban terrorist, a 9/11 image and convicted criminal OJ Simpson. No one complains.

? Time and Newsweek aren't/weren't Conservative magazines.

They are news magazines. Rolling Stone is supposed to be an entertainment magazine, which is why folks are outraged.

People are outraged because "Rolling Stone is supposed to be an entertainment magazine"? That's a new one.

That magazine has done a LOT of journalism that wasn't just about entertainment, some of it rather important and of a high standard. As a hint for recent example, I will offer you a name:

McChrystal. Look it up if you (surprisingly) don't know.

I'm not aware of anyone objecting to that article because Rolling Stone was the wrong kind of magazine. The New York Times (in 2010) said that story, "was just the latest in a string of articles resonating in the nation’s corridors of power." They also said, in the same article about that magazine's solid record of investigative journalism, that RS "has attracted enormous attention for its political coverage".

By the way, it has been rather tough at times on the current administration and Wenner has said that is because of disappointment with the president. Are you outraged because of your imagined belief that RS has to stick to entertainment?

[webfact]

related topic:

US police officer suspended for releasing Boston bomber Tsarnaev capture pictures

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/654943-us-police-officer-suspended-for-releasing-boston-bomber-tsarnaev-capture-pictures/

[Ulysses G.]

People are outraged because "Rolling Stone is supposed to be an entertainment magazine"? That's a new one.

Whether you like it, or not. Rolling Stone is perceived as a rock music magazine and most of its content is about entertainment. They also do some serious articles on current events, but this is not about the article inside. It is about the cover of the Rolling Stone.

If you look at the past covers, you will find plenty of glamorous photos of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones. Bob Dylan and even Denzel Washington and Winona Ryder, but the only serious bad guy that I can remember was Charles Manson, many years ago, and he looked exactly like the wild eyed lunatic that he is. There was no attempt to glorify him.

In general, being on the cover of the Rolling Stone is perceived as an endorsement and that is why the public is so riled about this.

We take all kinds of pills

that give us all kind of thrills

but the thrill we'll never know

Is the thrill that'll getcha

when you get your picture

on the cover of the Rolling Stone

-Dr. Hook

Edited July 20, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[SteeleJoe]

People are outraged because "Rolling Stone is supposed to be an entertainment magazine"? That's a new one.

Whether you like it, or not. Rolling Stone is perceived as a rock music magazine and most of its content is about entertainment. They also do some serious articles on current events, but this is not about the article inside. It is about the cover of the Rolling Stone.

If you look at the past covers, you will find plenty of glamorous photos of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones. Bob Dylan and even Denzel Washington and Winona Ryder, but the only serious bad guy that I can remember was Charles Manson, many years ago, and he looked exactly like the wild eyed lunatic that he is. There was no attempt to glorify him.

In general, being on the cover of the Rolling Stone is perceived as an endorsement and that is why the public is so riled about this.

We take all kinds of pills

that give us all kind of thrills

but the thrill we'll never know

Is the thrill that'll getcha

when you get your picture

on the cover of the Rolling Stone

-Dr. Hook

Like it or not? An odd thing to say - I can imagine few things of less concern to me than how Rolling Stone magazine is perceived (even were I to concede your authority on how everyone perceives it - lyrics of a lame 70s pop song notwithstanding).

I think it's untrue that the issue is that it's "supposed to be an entertainment magazine" but on consideration, it might be a factor. Do you think if Time used the same photo, it would be OK? If Entertainment Weekly did an article - with a black cover - people would be outraged? Maybe.

As for the type of photograph used, I've already said I think there's a legitimate or at least understandable cause for complaint there. But I question your implicit accusation of an attempt to glorify the lowlife - especially given the accompanying text on the cover let alone the reported content of the article (and aside from the fact that it would be a truly bizarre thing for RS to do).

Edited July 20, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Somtamnication]

If you take the emotions out of this argument, you are left with what Rolling Stone mag wanted to do: Portray someone who does not look like a terrorist.

They effectively proved that you cannot identify a terrorist purely by their looks.

[SteeleJoe]

The difference - at least in part - would indeed appear to be that it was Rolling Stone Magazine...

Edited July 21, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[boomerangutang]

I first felt these sorts of sentiments of disgust when I was a younger guy and say Time and Newsweek with covers which portrayed bit head shots of the likes of Ayatollah Kohmeini, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, and even serial killers (Ted Bundy, etc). Some of those aforementioned were even awarded with "Man of the Year" accolades (now it's become; 'person of the year' in a bow to political correctness). Now, I'm more cynical, sorry to say.

I heard that Hitler made the cover of Time mag, in his day.

[Credo]

I don't have a problem with his picture on the cover. I hope people read and learn something from the article. I remember many years ago that drugs were something that affected other people. When Art Linkletter's daughter made a jump off a balcony while high on drugs, a lot of middle class people started to stand up and pay attention.

I don't know if there is much we can do, but armed with knowledge and a little soul searching, perhaps we can prevent more of this from happening.

[antfish]

I don't have a problem with his picture on the cover. I hope people read and learn something from the article. I remember many years ago that drugs were something that affected other people. When Art Linkletter's daughter made a jump off a balcony while high on drugs, a lot of middle class people started to stand up and pay attention.

I don't know if there is much we can do, but armed with knowledge and a little soul searching, perhaps we can prevent more of this from happening.

but armed with knowledge and a little soul searching,

There were no drugs inside Linkletters system when she commit suicide.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/linkletter.asp

[Ulysses G.]

Wow! That is some urban myth. I have believed it for years.

[Scott]

I don't have a problem with his picture on the cover. I hope people read and learn something from the article. I remember many years ago that drugs were something that affected other people. When Art Linkletter's daughter made a jump off a balcony while high on drugs, a lot of middle class people started to stand up and pay attention.

I don't know if there is much we can do, but armed with knowledge and a little soul searching, perhaps we can prevent more of this from happening.

but armed with knowledge and a little soul searching,

There were no drugs inside Linkletters system when she commit suicide.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/linkletter.asp

Thanks for correcting the information.

[LomSak27]

Faux news acolytes and others are riled up - when they have enough people to win an election it might mean something. It means nothing.

It's a good article, I take it because of the hoopdedo about it you can read it on their site. I assume you usually have to be a paid subscriber to acess it. I thought RS was dead 10 years ago but with Matt Taibbi's coverage of the financial scandals that blew up the economy, RS is worth reading these days.

[sdanielmcev]

2 questions; When did Rolling Stone become a magazine? (It's a tabloid.)

Secondly, why would anyone care?

[SteeleJoe]

2 questions; When did Rolling Stone become a magazine? (It's a tabloid.)

Secondly, why would anyone care?

1) It has always, by definition, been a magazine. (It does not meet the definition of tabloid).

2) Read the thread. If you still don't know why some people do, give up.

Glad to help.