'Rolling Stone' defends Tsarnaev cover

Options
13

Replies

  • Jerrypeoples
    Jerrypeoples Posts: 1,541 Member
    Options
    people still rely on Rolling Stone to tell them what is good?
  • Buckeyt
    Buckeyt Posts: 473 Member
    Options
    whats the big deal? Time had Bin Laden on the cover. Rolling Stone does lots of serious articles.


    im sure they picked a picture they knew would draw attention but so what?

    Hitler was Time's man of the year in 1938, granted that was before he invade Poland.
  • ladyfox1979
    ladyfox1979 Posts: 405 Member
    Options
    If they really wanted him to look sexy they woulda had him do the janet jackson pose. in all seriousness though, the editors and publishers of Rolling Stone magazine should be forced to walk down the streets of Boston holding up the issue.

    rolling-stone-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-cover-2.jpg





    ^^^LMFAO^^ Love this
  • jmc0806
    jmc0806 Posts: 1,444 Member
    Options
    Mayor Menino's reply to the publisher http://bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/media/2013/07/17/Menino_RollingStone.pdf

    Meh. Using it to gain political capital is as bad as putting him on the cover to start with.

    He's retiring. There's no political gain for him from this
  • JUDDDing
    JUDDDing Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    Mayor Menino's reply to the publisher http://bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/media/2013/07/17/Menino_RollingStone.pdf

    Meh. Using it to gain political capital is as bad as putting him on the cover to start with.

    He's retiring. There's no political gain for him from this

    Politicians don't retire. They die.

    I'd watch for a Senate campaign or something.
  • cmeade20
    cmeade20 Posts: 1,238 Member
    Options
    Mayor Menino's reply to the publisher http://bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/media/2013/07/17/Menino_RollingStone.pdf

    Meh. Using it to gain political capital is as bad as putting him on the cover to start with.

    He's retiring. There's no political gain for him from this

    Politicians don't retire. They die.

    I'd watch for a Senate campaign or something.


    Ehh he's been in the hospital a lot lately and hasn't looked to good. I think his health is on the decline.
  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    Options
    Now I want to read the article...

    But I don't read magazines...

    I really see this as much ado about nothing... really. So there is a pretty picture of him on the cover of a popular magazine.. so what? It's just to get people to talk about the guy... or have some self-righteous indignation over it. People get worked up over the smallest things.

    Though I really am curious as to what is in the article now... mostly so I can see why people feathers are in a fluff and say "did you even READ the article?"
  • Jersey_Devil
    Jersey_Devil Posts: 4,142 Member
    Options
    the controversy isnt about the article, it's about the stupid cover. Usually its a musician on the cover and if not a musician someone in the entertainment industry--- they are treating him like a rock god. classless.
  • Rage_Phish
    Rage_Phish Posts: 1,508 Member
    Options
    the controversy isnt about the article, it's about the stupid cover. Usually its a musician on the cover and if not a musician someone in the entertainment industry--- they are treating him like a rock god. classless.

    A quick google search would show you that's not true. There have been many non "entertainers" on the cover from politicians, social activists & even terrible people.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    the controversy isnt about the article, it's about the stupid cover. Usually its a musician on the cover and if not a musician someone in the entertainment industry--- they are treating him like a rock god. classless.

    A quick google search would show you that's not true. There have been many non "entertainers" on the cover from politicians, social activists & even terrible people.

    The cover resembles a famous Van Morrison cover, but obviously that wasn't intentional. I still think if he weren't so pretty they wouldn't have put him on the cover, but that's just me.
  • Lisa1971
    Lisa1971 Posts: 3,069 Member
    Options
    I think whomever decided he would be on the cover should be FIRED!

    Agreed!
  • BrunetteRunner87
    BrunetteRunner87 Posts: 591 Member
    Options
    I think as far as terrorists go, he's good looking...but as far as the general population goes, no he's not good looking at all. I could walk down the street and find many people looking way better than him.
  • JustJennie1
    JustJennie1 Posts: 3,843 Member
    Options
    The cover was tacky however we all played into what I am guessing was the whole point of the cover: Media attention. Because of the outrage over the cover the magazine and the terrorist are getting the attention that putting him there was designed to get. If I had not heard about it on the news I never would have known about it and I am sure it is the same with everyone else. As it stands because of the coverage EVERYONE now knows about it, is talking about it (case in point here) and posting pictures about it. Regardless of the people who say they are banning the magazine and what not I am sure that they got decent sales off of this because of the publicity.

    It was a stunt pure and simple and we played into it exactly in the way they intended.
  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 Member
    Options
    In my opinion if journalistic integrity was at all a concern they would have avoided the glamorous pretty boy photo on the cover.



    http://thatswhatshesaidboston.com/2013/07/dear-rolling-stone/

    This person says it better than me to be honest.

    But from a position of artistic integrity, the cover's a good choice. The article is about how an normal-sweet looking boy could descend into becoming a monster ... Having the sweetest, most innocent-looking photo of them that they could find advances their narrative far more effectively than putting an arrest photo or something like that on the cover. When you're reading the article it'll have more impact if the image in your mind is that cover, instead of a cover showing him in the worst possible light.
  • mheebner
    mheebner Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    I think that they have the right to run a cover pic any way they choose...and I fully hope the *kitten*-storm completely blows up in their faces. It seems to me a desperate attempt to remain important in todays society...PR by any means necessary
  • Follow_me
    Follow_me Posts: 6,120 Member
    Options
    Tasteless
  • SrJoben
    SrJoben Posts: 484 Member
    Options
    I literally don't understand what people are upset about.

    Tempest in a teapot.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    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.


    Personally, I think people are in an uproar because they are not accustomed to articles like these that aren't filled with "HE'S A TERRORIST! GRAB YOUR KIDDOS AND RUN FOR THE HILLS!" in every other sentence. I wouldn't exactly call the cover a "Glam Cover." Yes, he is handsome. And I think that's part of what they are saying in the article. I don't get the outrage over it. I thought Rolling Stone's coverage was fairly balanced.
  • britzzie
    britzzie Posts: 341 Member
    Options
    I think that the cover was created in an attractive way to make a statement. This was once a normal kid. He was well liked by a lot of people. So how did he turn out to be somebody who would do something so monstrous?

    Yes, he should be tried to the fullest extent of the law. No, he should not be put up on a pedestal.

    But I think that rather than just demonizing and hating this person, it is more productive to ask ourselves how such a change could happen to him. And we have to humanize him in order to do that. Only when we know the why will we be able to attempt to prevent people from doing such things.

    The cover shows him as human and the article digs into the why. RS knew people would be offended, but those of us open-minded enough to want to know who this kid is and what may have caused him to change might read it. The others never would have anyway.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,248 Member
    Options
    I think the whole controversy is generated by Rolling Stone, because it's the only way to get anyone to buy the magazine.

    Is it any worse than this?

    61-1.jpg

Categories