'Rolling Stone' defends Tsarnaev cover

Options
UsedToBeHusky
UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
in Chit-Chat
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-marathon-bombing-rolling-stone/2523891/

Personally, I just think they did it cause he's good-looking.




Thoughts? Not looking to start a debate. Just curious what people thought were the motivations behind this.
«134

Replies

  • SlimJanette
    SlimJanette Posts: 597 Member
    Options
    I don't understand why they would glorify him. But they say that PR is PR whether it is good or bad.
    People will buy it to see why he is on the cover. Therefore they have done what they set out to do.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    I don't understand why they would glorify him. But they say that PR is PR whether it is good or bad.
    People will buy it to see why he is on the cover. Therefore they have done what they set out to do.

    I suppose that is true. But they have never needed to pull a stunt like this before to sell magazines.
  • Krizzle4Rizzle
    Krizzle4Rizzle Posts: 2,704 Member
    Options
    If I recall, hasn't TIME magazine had controversial covers?
  • SlimJanette
    SlimJanette Posts: 597 Member
    Options
    I personally wouldn't buy it because I don't agree with them doing it.
  • oregonzoo
    oregonzoo Posts: 4,251 Member
    Options
    I think we need to know more about the brothers. Yes.
    But I'm also not comfortable with glorifying them.

    Those who kill and pull off terror stunts are getting far far too much press these days.
  • cruzcrzyMarie
    cruzcrzyMarie Posts: 251 Member
    Options
    I think whomever decided he would be on the cover should be FIRED!
  • Alex_is_Hawks
    Alex_is_Hawks Posts: 3,499 Member
    Options
    it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't tried to use soft lighting and other effects to make him look like a young sexy pop star...

    how many teens are gonna fall in love with him based on the cover and never bother to even read what he did?

    it's just sad really
  • SlimJanette
    SlimJanette Posts: 597 Member
    Options
    I am Canadian so this did not affect myself personally although I did feel terrible for Boston, but is it not too soon to be even having this on the cover? He hasn't even mad it to court. What happens when the trial starts?
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    If I recall, hasn't TIME magazine had controversial covers?

    Yeah, but TIME is a news magazine... Rolling Stone is more of a pop culture magazine. Putting him on the cover kind of implies that he should be viewed the same as celebrities.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't tried to use soft lighting and other effects to make him look like a young sexy pop star...

    how many teens are gonna fall in love with him based on the cover and never bother to even read what he did?

    it's just sad really

    This... they put him on the cover because he's young and handsome.
  • Rage_Phish
    Rage_Phish Posts: 1,508 Member
    Options
    did people complain when the NY Times did the same?
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPY4qE1CYAAOA3Z.jpg:large


    Did people get offended by this one?
    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4561397_f248.jpg


    Or this one
    http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/12_19_1969.jpg

    I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

    Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?
    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1117985/thumbs/o-THE-WEEK-570.jpg?7
  • jmc0806
    jmc0806 Posts: 1,444 Member
    Options
    awful...they use a picture that makes him look like a rock star and Jim Morrison lookalike
  • Rage_Phish
    Rage_Phish Posts: 1,508 Member
    Options
    If I recall, hasn't TIME magazine had controversial covers?

    Yeah, but TIME is a news magazine... Rolling Stone is more of a pop culture magazine. Putting him on the cover kind of implies that he should be viewed the same as celebrities.

    RS have had serious news coverage since the beginning. Hunter S Thompson covering the campaign in 72 for example.

    They win awards all of the time. The McChrystal article got a Polk award. The Goldman Sachs story got a Hillman foundation award.
  • ryry_
    ryry_ Posts: 4,966 Member
    Options
    Kind of Bad...Didn't even realize it was him the first time I saw it. Thought it was like the next John Mayer type.

    Now the next crazy kid who wants to be famous has incentive. Sad.
  • Espressocycle
    Espressocycle Posts: 2,245 Member
    Options
    If I recall, hasn't TIME magazine had controversial covers?

    Yes, and many terrorists have graced the covers of magazines. Hitler was man of the year after all, it's not always a good guy.
    They are making a statement - here's this guy who doesn't look like a terrorist. Here's how he became one.
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,841 Member
    Options
    Bad taste and judgement, but who cares if it sells, right/
  • So_Much_Fab
    So_Much_Fab Posts: 1,146 Member
    Options
    it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't tried to use soft lighting and other effects to make him look like a young sexy pop star...

    This is along the lines of my thinking. They could have used an unflattering picture, or Photoshop effects to make him look less sexy and perhaps more sinister. This cover was being compared to them putting Charles Manson on the cover in 1970, but Manson didn't look like a model on that cover.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

    Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?

    That's a good point. But will people really see the article that way?
  • michellechawner
    michellechawner Posts: 892
    Options
    Do I think it was a good idea? No, too soon in my opinion. But once the trial starts? You bet!

    Am I mad at Rolling Stone? Nope. It's their business. All PR is good PR.

    Do I agree with what they did? No. But it's life.

    Do I think the younger one was brainwashed by his brother? Yes.

    Although I do not AGREE with the way both brothers handled things (the bombing), I do SOMEWHAT understand where they are coming from. Go ahead, I'm a white girl, but many people won't be friends with me / give me dirty looks because my boyfriend of nearly 3 years is a Muslim. So while I can understand that yes the killing is uncalled for over where they were from or for their beliefs, and they were mad and wanted revenge, it was also uncalled for to hurt (bomb) Americans as well.
  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 Member
    Options
    I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

    Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?

    That's a good point. But will people actually see the article?

    Fixed.

Categories