Boston Marathon Explosions

[Mavric]

No surprise that "news" magazines would have news stories. Rolling Stone isn't in the same category.

 

And if there would have been the internet and such then I'm sure the reaction would have been the same.

[rawhide]

I don't buy mags/papers to read about some POS that killed innocent people. Now this I might have purchased:

 

http://

[The Dude]

[The Dude]

After seeing this guy's face on the news every time I turned on the TV, seeing his face on every news site I visited, just about every news magazine and newspaper I picked up for weeks on end, I can't think of a reason I should be more upset at Rolling Stone for running a cover story on him.

[JJ Husker]

After seeing this guy's face on the news every time I turned on the TV, seeing his face on every news site I visited, just about every news magazine and newspaper I picked up for weeks on end, I can't think of a reason I should be more upset at Rolling Stone for running a cover story on him.

 

I don't care if you're upset with Rolling Stone or not. I'm not particularly upset with them either because I couldn't give two sh#ts what RS thinks and I expect crap like this from them. But, this isn't about them running a "cover story" on him, it's about the way they are portraying him on the cover.

 

Look at our cover; being a murderous terrorist is cool kids. There's no shame in what this guy did. Maybe if you do the same we'll run a cool pic of you on our cover too.

 

Probably not the best message for them to be putting out.

[zoogs]

I really have to shake my head at this idea that what these criminal brothers did has affected us enough to call for guidelines as to how they can be portrayed. Talk about 'letting the terrorists win.'

 

If we as a society are too uncomfortable to look ourselves in the mirror and admit that evil comes in all guises, including the young, beautiful, and Instagrammed, where's that leave us?

 

The RS cover is jarring because Dzhokhar doesn't fit into the established narrative for what guys like this should look like. That's a good accomplishment by Rolling Stone and darn good journalism. There is nothing at all of value in saying, "we are too sensitive to confront this except accordingly to suitably familiar scripts." Lastly -- there will always exist criminals who do what they do for notoriety. Let's please not pretend that censoring our dialogue and commentary will do anything to even curb this.

[knapplc]

I've heard the narrative that we don't like the Rolling Stone cover because this kid is good-looking. It's hogwash. This isn't some commentary on American prejudice, it's a cheap exploitation of justifiable anger.

[The Dude]

After seeing this guy's face on the news every time I turned on the TV, seeing his face on every news site I visited, just about every news magazine and newspaper I picked up for weeks on end, I can't think of a reason I should be more upset at Rolling Stone for running a cover story on him.

 

I don't care if you're upset with Rolling Stone or not. I'm not particularly upset with them either because I couldn't give two sh#ts what RS thinks and I expect crap like this from them. But, this isn't about them running a "cover story" on him, it's about the way they are portraying him on the cover.

 

Look at our cover; being a murderous terrorist is cool kids. There's no shame in what this guy did. Maybe if you do the same we'll run a cool pic of you on our cover too.

 

Probably not the best message for them to be putting out.

What did they do to the picture that makes it a different portrayal than the hundreds of other publications that ran the same exact photo?

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

I have no problem putting him on the cover if the photo is him enjoying his last few breaths of air while sitting in a particularly uncomfortable chair!

[JJ Husker]

 

I don't care if you're upset with Rolling Stone or not. I'm not particularly upset with them either because I couldn't give two sh#ts what RS thinks and I expect crap like this from them. But, this isn't about them running a "cover story" on him, it's about the way they are portraying him on the cover.

 

Look at our cover; being a murderous terrorist is cool kids. There's no shame in what this guy did. Maybe if you do the same we'll run a cool pic of you on our cover too.

 

Probably not the best message for them to be putting out.

What did they do to the picture that makes it a different portrayal than the hundreds of other publications that ran the same exact photo?

Well, I've only seen this picture in the two publications shown in this thread. I guess it's not so much the specific picture as it is being presented in the context of Rolling Stone magazine. A lot of it probably has to do more with my thoughts and bias about RS than this actual deal. But the difference for me in these two presentations is, The New York Times pic ran with the headline "The Dark Side, Carefully Masked" whereas the RS cover is in the context of rock n roll (in my mind anyway) with one of the prominent headlines being "On the bus with Willie" and the large print, cool nickname "The Bomber".

 

Look, RS can print anything they want. I'm not calling for any changes or sanctions and I'm really not upset at all. But, I do feel, in that context, it sort of glorifies his actions and is indirectly telling people that this guy isn't all that bad, he's just a rebel. IMO, not a good or desirable message. I'd probably just be happier if Rolling Stone got out of the non-music journalism business all together.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

A lot of this talk about RS is, in my opinion, misguided.

 

Yeah, there are definitely some incongruencies between the message they are giving and how they are delivering that message.

 

There is an issue, infrequent, but severe that we have this preconceived idea of what serial killers, terrorists, etc...look like. We think that they are the weird, talk to themselves, extremely introverted people. But that's not the case. Anyone, given the right circumstances, can go from being a normal, everyday person to a monster. That's the message they want to deliver. That's why there isn't a picture of him looking all crazy or in prison clothes. It would only reinforce and feed our stereotypes of these people--like they're dysfunctional people from the very beginning of their lives and can be easily identified.

 

But RS went wrong by including his picture with names of musicians and Jay-Z along the side. While certainly unintentional, it leads some to think that they are glorifying this guy. And I haven't followed or have been following what kind of news RS covers. Perhaps they weren't the right magazine to cover this.

[JJ Husker]

I don't disagree with that BBBXII but I don't think anything I've said about RS is misguided. Uninformed maybe. I have not read the associated article they ran with that picture so I have no idea if their purpose is to show that radical terrorists can and sometimes do look like normal everyday people. My opinions were strictly based on my perception of this cover and my combined idea of how RS typically operates and that could be extremely uninformed cuz I don't read it and never really pay any attention to it.

 

I mentioned this pages earlier in this topic but that kid looks exactly like my 19 year old son looked a few years ago when he still had his hockey hair. The resemblance is so uncanny that we even talked to him about being prepared for additional screening at the airport for his current trip to Cali this week.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Misguided...uninformed, you can basically substitute them. I'm not the best with word choice sometimes.

[knapplc]

[JJ Husker]

Misguided...uninformed, you can basically substitute them. I'm not the best with word choice sometimes.

 

You're right, there isn't much difference. I may be splitting hairs. In my mind, misguided suggests going in an illogical direction while uninformed might mean going that same wrong direction but not knowing any better.

 

I'm curious what comments about RS you felt were misguided. Your post hinted at the same problems I had with it and your only departure from that was your comments that we need to realize it's not just obvious looking whackjobs that can do these types of things. I agree. But, unless you're sure that was RS's intention and can explain why your sure, how does that alleviate the concerns of RS making this guy look like some kind of accidental rock star?