Boston Marathon Explosions

[JJ Husker]

 

See, now I sort of like this version. If RS would've just run with this.......no probs.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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?

 

By RS putting a picture of him looking just as normal as you or I would look, it gives the impression that the serial killers and terrorists aren't (before) as different as you or I. If he would've been pictured with his hair unkempt and in prison clothes, that message isn't as powerful. The imagery matches their intentions.

 

What I don't like is that, alongside him being on the cover are the names Willie Nelson and Jay-Z, people who are iconic. Combining those names with Tsarnaev's picture on the front gives off the impression that he is iconic as well, and that doesn't send a good message.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

By RS putting a picture of him looking just as normal as you or I would look, it gives the impression that the serial killers and terrorists aren't (before) as different as you or I. If he would've been pictured with his hair unkempt and in prison clothes, that message isn't as powerful. The imagery matches their intentions.

 

What I don't like is that, alongside him being on the cover are the names Willie Nelson and Jay-Z, people who are iconic. Combining those names with Tsarnaev's picture on the front gives off the impression that he is iconic as well, and that doesn't send a good message.

 

I agree with all of that. I guess I'm just not convinced that was RS's intention. Probably makes no difference in the long run but I don't see that as being their motivation, to inform the public that the apparently normal person next door could just as easily be the next marathon bomber or theatre shooter. I more suspect that they thought it would be controversial and help sell their mag. Color me cynical.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

By RS putting a picture of him looking just as normal as you or I would look, it gives the impression that the serial killers and terrorists aren't (before) as different as you or I. If he would've been pictured with his hair unkempt and in prison clothes, that message isn't as powerful. The imagery matches their intentions.

 

What I don't like is that, alongside him being on the cover are the names Willie Nelson and Jay-Z, people who are iconic. Combining those names with Tsarnaev's picture on the front gives off the impression that he is iconic as well, and that doesn't send a good message.

 

I agree with all of that. I guess I'm just not convinced that was RS's intention. Probably makes no difference in the long run but I don't see that as being their motivation, to inform the public that the apparently normal person next door could just as easily be the next marathon bomber or theatre shooter. I more suspect that they thought it would be controversial and help sell their mag. Color me cynical.

 

Fair enough. I can't tell you what to and what not to believe.

[The Dude]

I more suspect that they thought it would be controversial and help sell their mag. Color me cynical.

They wouldn't have done it if they thought it wouldn't help them sell magazines. But I don't know if they expected this much of a controversy. The editor's tweets "I guess we should have drawn a dick on his face or something" and "Not going to be able to watch the news for a while. This is just so dispiriting." make me think this wasn't exactly the outcome they were expecting.

 

To me it's not any different than news stations plastering his face all over TV 20 hours a day for ratings, and don't really see why Rolling Stone deserves more enthusiastic criticism.

[Junior]

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.

 

And herein lies the problem. People would rather make their judgements looking at a picture versus reading a long-ish news article. We want to believe this is a terrorist:

 

 

 

We don't want to believe this is a terrorist, because this one is much more difficult to spot:

[zoogs]

I more suspect that they thought it would be controversial and help sell their mag. Color me cynical.

They wouldn't have done it if they thought it wouldn't help them sell magazines. But I don't know if they expected this much of a controversy. The editor's tweets "I guess we should have drawn a dick on his face or something" and "Not going to be able to watch the news for a while. This is just so dispiriting." make me think this wasn't exactly the outcome they were expecting.

 

To me it's not any different than news stations plastering his face all over TV 20 hours a day for ratings, and don't really see why Rolling Stone deserves more enthusiastic criticism.

 

, did the editor actually say that?!

[JJ Husker]

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.

 

And herein lies the problem. People would rather make their judgements looking at a picture versus reading a long-ish news article. We want to believe this is a terrorist:

 

 

You are correct, this WAS the problem. I had not read the article but now I have. However, it was not a case of "rather" making the judgement based on a picture but that this picture and my preconceived notions about RS were all I had to go on at the time. It also really had nothing to do with my preference for how terrorists should look. I fully realized that a terrorist could look like any normal person.

 

I must say I was wrong. That was a very good article in RS and, after reading it, I really can't imagine them running a different picture of him on their cover. The only caveat to that being that they still could have run the story and not done the cover. I would venture that more people will look at that cover without reading the article than those that will read it. But, now that I know better, that is more my problem (and the other people who complain about it without reading the article) than it is anything RS did wrong. If you review my prior comments, I was not vilifying RS for doing this, in fact I was not really upset or concerned at all. I simply gave my opinion of the message I thought that cover portrays. Given that I know people will see it without reading it, I can't say my opinion on the impression those people will get has changed. But my opinion about RS has changed.

[ADS]

New photos released after the Rolling Stone cover:

 

 

 

Red dot sight right on the forehead

[The Dude]

, did the editor actually say that?!

[sd'sker]

that red dot sight is crazy. curious why it is on the forehead. i know that is an instant death shot, but you would think they would place it somewhere with more margin for error, like the chest.

[ADS]

that red dot sight is crazy. curious why it is on the forehead. i know that is an instant death shot, but you would think they would place it somewhere with more margin for error, like the chest.

Incase he had an explosive

[ZRod]

that red dot sight is crazy. curious why it is on the forehead. i know that is an instant death shot, but you would think they would place it somewhere with more margin for error, like the chest.

Not going to lie I think those pictures with the dot are pretty badass from the cops perspective.

 

I'm sure BRI or someone more knowledgeable can give you the actual reason, but from what I've heard and read in books the 5.56mm or .223 round doesn't really pack much of a punch. Quite a few accounts of soldiers shooting an enemy and they just keep on coming, so if they want to be sure they aim for the head first and go for the kill shot. Better safe than sorry that you or your buddy got shot/blown up.

[sd'sker]

that red dot sight is crazy. curious why it is on the forehead. i know that is an instant death shot, but you would think they would place it somewhere with more margin for error, like the chest.

Incase he had an explosive

that's a good point.

 

also, i do not remember so well and i really did not pay all that much attention, but how come he is so bloody? was he shot up? and if so, how did he survive.

[Junior]

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.

 

And herein lies the problem. People would rather make their judgements looking at a picture versus reading a long-ish news article. We want to believe this is a terrorist:

 

 

You are correct, this WAS the problem. I had not read the article but now I have. However, it was not a case of "rather" making the judgement based on a picture but that this picture and my preconceived notions about RS were all I had to go on at the time. It also really had nothing to do with my preference for how terrorists should look. I fully realized that a terrorist could look like any normal person.

 

I must say I was wrong. That was a very good article in RS and, after reading it, I really can't imagine them running a different picture of him on their cover. The only caveat to that being that they still could have run the story and not done the cover. I would venture that more people will look at that cover without reading the article than those that will read it. But, now that I know better, that is more my problem (and the other people who complain about it without reading the article) than it is anything RS did wrong. If you review my prior comments, I was not vilifying RS for doing this, in fact I was not really upset or concerned at all. I simply gave my opinion of the message I thought that cover portrays. Given that I know people will see it without reading it, I can't say my opinion on the impression those people will get has changed. But my opinion about RS has changed.

 

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, and your comments prior to this have been reasonable. I hope my comment didn't come across attacking you, I didn't intend for it to. It's a digital age attention span issue, I believe, and I suffer from it at times as well.