Members DRW50 Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 The problem is this always turns into what a victim the shooter is. This happened with Columbine. It's happening here. The media loves to romanticize these shooters. And it inspires so many copycats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted July 18, 2013 Members Share Posted July 18, 2013 this is why i despise American nrews media. They give nonstop coverage to stuff like this, constantly showing the killer's(whatnot) pictue while the victim's get barely talked about I firmly believe media overhyping is what leads to alot of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphanguy74 Posted July 21, 2013 Members Share Posted July 21, 2013 Have you read the article? It is NOT flattering by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted July 21, 2013 Members Share Posted July 21, 2013 People will remember the cover, not the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted July 21, 2013 Members Share Posted July 21, 2013 Exactly. RS did the article a disservice by choosing that cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphanguy74 Posted July 21, 2013 Members Share Posted July 21, 2013 I agree, but I don't think the cover is glamorous in any way, the guy is just cute... that's what he looks like. I guess people expect him to look angry or be snarling in the pic or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted July 21, 2013 Members Share Posted July 21, 2013 I don't know why so many people are defaulting to "You're just angry that this cover doesn't live down to your stereotype." I'm not one of those people who thinks we shouldn't see the faces of these maniacs. I simply think that it's tacky, thoughtless and desperate. Like it or not, the cover of Rolling Stone is a different context than the cover of Time or The NYTimes. Being on the cover of Rolling Stone is a symbol of "making it." RS is primarily an entertainment magazine and the staff of that magazine is being disingenuous by pretending otherwise. Yes, they've done some great journalism but they aren't Life managazine. That photo was Tsarnaev's MySpace pic. He chose it because it made him look good. By putting that on the cover RS essentially made Tsarnaev the art director for that issue. The whole city of Boston is still suffering from the PTSD of that bombing and RS just shoved a great big trigger in their face. Journalism has become so competitive now that people some to have lost all concept of good judgment. Just like that San Francisco TV station that went live with those fake names. Nobody takes a moment to say, "Maybe this is just a bad idea." Then they get all butthurt when the marketplace tells them exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted July 21, 2013 Members Share Posted July 21, 2013 Exactly. The photo is one that he himself as as one of his best, as glamorous. They're selling it on his terms. The media loves to romanticize these types. And then they shake their heads in sorrow, right on cue, when the next mass murder occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.