Members Soapsuds Posted July 17, 2013 Members Share Posted July 17, 2013 This is just insane...I hope everyone boycotts Rolling Stone period..... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-marathon-bombing-rolling-stone/2523891/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted July 17, 2013 Members Share Posted July 17, 2013 This is part of a trend we've seen more and more of over the last few decades, where much of the media focus, and sympathy, goes to the killer, not to the victim, especially if the killer fits the right profile (attractive, white, male). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Graham Posted July 17, 2013 Members Share Posted July 17, 2013 Rolling Stone has to be loving this "controversy". So much free press! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xtr Posted July 17, 2013 Members Share Posted July 17, 2013 I do think that one of the reasons this picture was chosen to be on their cover is because they thought he was attractive. I think that this is awful. I do feel like they are trying to romanticize/give him some sort of rock star image, and it's terrible. They have his picture up there like he's a rock star like Kurt Cobain/Jim Morrison or John Lennon were. I don't think too many people care about what type of promise he had because he terrorized and killed people. It's not like he was a celebrity before he bombed Boston and they are trying to figure out what made him go wrong. He's someone that no one knew outside of his family/friends/acquaintance who decided to kill people much like many other criminals have done before him. The other criminals didn't deserve magazine covers on RollingStone and neither does he. I could understand more if this was a cover for a magazine like Time or Newsweek, because they do cover stories about violence and crime in America but Rollingstone is a pop culture magazine. I think it would have been okay if they wrote an article about him without including the picture that they did of him on their cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alexisfan07 Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 To be fair, they did put Charles Manson on the cover decades ago but in this day and age, this sort of irresponsibility is unacceptable. It is just going to feed the crazies and fuel the "effed up ish gets you famous" mantra that Scream 4 so well illustrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cheap21 Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 Utterly and completely disgusted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eric83 Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 The f-ck? Stupid bastards encouraging these people to go out and do something reckless for attention. SMDH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soapsuds Posted July 18, 2013 Author Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 Yup...now more nuts will come out of the shadows just to get on tv and on the mags...ugh..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphanguy74 Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 I don't see it that way at all. Is it because it's on Rolling Stone? If the picture was on the cover of a magazine such as Newsweek, would you feel differently? I mean, Osama Bin Laden was on the cover of Time and Newsweek.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eric83 Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 Ok those are news magazines and they weren't making Osama out to be some tragic hero. Rolling Stone is a pop culture magazine and the cover story is some sob story about the bomber and painting him as a victim which is absolutely a disgrace to the memory of those he killed and the ones he injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphanguy74 Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 I don't think they are trying to make a hero out of him, they are trying to psychologically analyze why people become sociopathic like that. Maybe it IS a sob story, but also... maybe it's a cautionary tale that needs to be told, a kind of "don't do this to your children, or they will become a terrorist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ~bl~ Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 Rolling Stone can put whomever they want on their cover. It is up to me to decide whether or not I want to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members VirginiaHamilton Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 People still read Rolling Stone in 2013? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 Their editor tweeted, and then deleted, a whine that basically asks if they are supposed to be like Perez Hilton. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rolling-stone-editor-deletes-tweet-controversial-cover-article-1.1401933 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 I think it's time to change the name of this magazine to Trolling Stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.