'Rolling Stone' defends Tsarnaev cover

Options
124»

Replies

  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 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

    Honestly, I was kind of thinking the same thing. I didn't buy Rolling Stone before and I probably won't buy it now. :ohwell: But to each their own.
  • KY2022runner
    KY2022runner Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    This is terrible, but Life did cover with Hitler an others have done similar.

    Rolling Stone is one step above toilet paper anyways, but at least toilet paper is useful.
  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 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

    Or this:

    1101990503_400.jpg

    Or this:

    1101950501_400.jpg
  • britzzie
    britzzie Posts: 341 Member
    Options
    This is terrible, but Life did cover with Hitler an others have done similar.

    Rolling Stone is one step above toilet paper anyways, but at least toilet paper is useful.

    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.
  • bearkisses
    bearkisses Posts: 1,252 Member
    Options
    everyone glorifies serial killers. So, what is the difference? Maybe too soon...
    I don't have an opinion either way. I think it was a daring choice.
  • aliciakay3086
    aliciakay3086 Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    Oops - I was replying to the poster who said that Rolling Stone had never pulled stunts like this. See cover with Charles Manson. Wrong.
  • sherrymccall
    sherrymccall Posts: 60 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.

    QFT.
  • freebirdjones
    freebirdjones Posts: 237
    Options
    RS said they wanted to publish this so we could start to talk about what would cause someone to do this and how to prevent this? That statement was clever and not their intent as we have discussed this before and do not know how to prevent this. I am sure tons of schools in the US look for key traits in children as possible school shooters and they still cannot accurately predict tragedy like this. I think they mainly did this for shock value and publicity, the article about Charles Manson did not help them in anyway learn what triggers these people. It was a bullsh!t statement that they knew people would eat up.

    One of the best video's I've watched is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWdsEfJ0cA

    It really opens the discussion as to why, because there in that video if you watch the whole thing it details any reason you could think of. I honesty have no idea why and I don't think RS is any closer to the answer.

    I also agree that it glorifies, and some twisted teen may want to get on the cover of RS. Some do it to get themselves remembered.
  • pudadough
    pudadough Posts: 1,271 Member
    Options
    Rolling Stone hasn't been relevant for years. They're trying the shock journalism angle now.


    Just go away and die already, RS.
  • Jerrypeoples
    Jerrypeoples Posts: 1,541 Member
    Options
    actually RS has quite a few well respected and award winning writers. this is no different than putting the two columbine schmucks on the cover of time, or the unabomber or all the other crazy folks out there who have made the covers of various news magazines
  • pudadough
    pudadough Posts: 1,271 Member
    Options
    actually RS has quite a few well respected and award winning writers. this is no different than putting the two columbine schmucks on the cover of time, or the unabomber or all the other crazy folks out there who have made the covers of various news magazines

    Time is a news magazine. Rolling Stone is, was, and always will be first known as a music and pop culture publication. That is why it's inappropriate.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    actually RS has quite a few well respected and award winning writers. this is no different than putting the two columbine schmucks on the cover of time, or the unabomber or all the other crazy folks out there who have made the covers of various news magazines

    Time is a news magazine. Rolling Stone is, was, and always will be first known as a music and pop culture publication. That is why it's inappropriate.

    Agreed.
  • sanndandi
    sanndandi Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    [/quote]
    why put him on the cover at all....why not put another piece as the cover and have the article still in there...

    [/quote]

    edited to try to fix the fact that this was a quote from some above poster but it didnt work. Still I agree with this sentiment.
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,365 Member
    Options
    I don't really have a problem with the cover because that's just a picture of him that has been passed around for months. It's not as if they emoved him from his jail cell and brought him to a studio to take pictures.

    I think the article could be quite eye-opening. He looks like a normal kid you'd see on the street, attractive by society's standards, did well in school, and assimilated to the american culture. But if you dig beyond the surface you can learn what brought out these terroristic behaviors, not only in him but in his brother. It also shows that anyone could potentially be a terrorist. This guy was a classmate, friend, and neighbor, and no one expected this. It really makes you think.
  • SabrinaLC
    SabrinaLC Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    I'm re-sharing this reply, not only because I agree but because more people need to realize this isn't the only time a face like this (or this one specifically) has made the cover of something. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
    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
  • SabrinaLC
    SabrinaLC Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    Well said.
    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?

    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.
  • waipepe
    waipepe Posts: 110 Member
    Options
    Like some have said, it's not about the article but about the cover. And yes, they have put others on the cover like Manson but that was so many years ago, times have changed and society has moved along. If they wanted to portray an innocent child turning to what this guy did then they should have chosen his pic as a child. The pic they have chosen is simply wrong without any kind of taste or artistic disposition. The editor tried to be edgy (obviously sales are down) but from the moment I saw the cover it simply was not the right cover. everyone has their own opinion but it seems that a lot of people are speaking out against RS
  • almc170
    almc170 Posts: 1,093 Member
    Options
    I don't really have a problem with the cover because that's just a picture of him that has been passed around for months. It's not as if they emoved him from his jail cell and brought him to a studio to take pictures.

    I think the article could be quite eye-opening. He looks like a normal kid you'd see on the street, attractive by society's standards, did well in school, and assimilated to the american culture. But if you dig beyond the surface you can learn what brought out these terroristic behaviors, not only in him but in his brother. It also shows that anyone could potentially be a terrorist. This guy was a classmate, friend, and neighbor, and no one expected this. It really makes you think.
    Agreed.

    And the article is posted here, if anyone's interested:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717
  • jchite84
    jchite84 Posts: 467 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.

    Yeah, they've NEVER EVER done anything like this before. Because this is nothing like June 1970, when they put a pop icon-esque Charles Manson on their cover. Oh, wait. It's just like that? So, I guess this is nothing new.
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,365 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 don't see where they glorified anything, maybe you read a different article? I read the story about an hour ago on RS.com and it was pretty insightful. I'm sure it didn't go into every last detail, but they really broke it down so you could see the disintegration of his seemingly normal life (and his psyche). Of course that does not justify his actions at all, but it does paint a picture of what might have lead to it. It was an interesting read, because much of it was from the point of view of those who knew him as just a normal kid.

Categories