The Dude Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 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. It's interesting how they combine that approach with the use of the word "monster". Simply dismissing this kind of terrorism as the work of a "monster" does nothing to advance any understanding of the motives and thinking behind such acts. Doesn't seem compatible with the thrust of the piece. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 New photos released after the Rolling Stone cover: Red dot sight right on the forehead Actually these photos were not officially "released". The police sergeant Sean Murphy who did release them faces a hearing to determine if he will be suspended until the investigation into his actions is completed. Link to comment
ADS Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 New photos released after the Rolling Stone cover: Red dot sight right on the forehead Actually these photos were not officially "released". The police sergeant Sean Murphy who did release them faces a hearing to determine if he will be suspended until the investigation into his actions is completed. Pardon me, these photos were "leaked". Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Pardon me, these photos were "leaked". Haha. My clarification was meant as a compliment to you, not as a correction to your wording. 1 Link to comment
ADS Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Pardon me, these photos were "leaked". Haha. My clarification was meant as a compliment to you, not as a correction to your wording. Link to comment
VA Husker Fan Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 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. The news stories did it while it was current news. First, as "these are the guys we are looking for" and then "this is the guy we just caught". Rolling Stone is 3 months later, and isn't so much a news magazine as a pop culture magazine. You want to be pop culture? Blow up a few people. You can argue that if the goal is to be on all the major news stations, then do the same thing, so maybe it is all the same thing. To me there's a difference between news and pop culture. Other than that, I was easily within a mile of the bombing, had passed within yards of the bombing site within the previous hour, and visited the MIT campus in Cambridge the next day, and mostly my reaction to this is "Meh". Not worth my attention. Rolling Stone mag is rarely worth my attention in any case, and I'm not going to raise attention to it with any outrage or protests. Link to comment
The Dude Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 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. The news stories did it while it was current news. First, as "these are the guys we are looking for" and then "this is the guy we just caught". Rolling Stone is 3 months later, and isn't so much a news magazine as a pop culture magazine. You want to be pop culture? Blow up a few people. You can argue that if the goal is to be on all the major news stations, then do the same thing, so maybe it is all the same thing. To me there's a difference between news and pop culture. Other than that, I was easily within a mile of the bombing, had passed within yards of the bombing site within the previous hour, and visited the MIT campus in Cambridge the next day, and mostly my reaction to this is "Meh". Not worth my attention. Rolling Stone mag is rarely worth my attention in any case, and I'm not going to raise attention to it with any outrage or protests. My initial reaction was surprise that people are outraged to see his face on the cover of a magazine, after seeing his face plastered all over all forms of media nonstop for weeks or months on end. Because that's how I felt when I saw it. "Meh". An image I've already seen a thousand times. But as I've heard people's interpretation of the cover and the reason for their rage, I understand it a little more, and I'm not going to tell them they can't feel that way. But after delving into the article a bit, I think they're flat wrong. To say they're trying to glorify him or just trying to create a controversy is to miss the point. The thrust of the piece after all is how a normal guy can end up becoming a terrorist and committing such horrible acts. So the image on the cover isn't particularly problematic. I think they have a reasonably substantial piece, at least compared to whatever album is coming out this month, so there's really no reason for the magazine not to highlight it on the cover. I think it's the same effect Time magazine was going for when they put clean cut white boy Timmy McVeigh on the cover with the subheading "The Face of Terror". The difference is, the Rolling Stone cover was much more effective. Obviously. 3 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 No surprise that "news" magazines would have news stories. Rolling Stone isn't in the same category. Exactly. I think Bin Laden was Times person of the year a few years back. Rollingstone is off base with this picture. Link to comment
The Dude Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 No surprise that "news" magazines would have news stories. Rolling Stone isn't in the same category. Exactly. I think Bin Laden was Times person of the year a few years back. Rollingstone is off base with this picture. Nah, they chickened out and gave it to Giuliani because it was the politically correct thing to do. Even though based on their own definition of what the Man Person of the Year is, it probably should have been bin Laden. But it's their magazine they can do whatever they want. As for the people not thinking of hard news when they think of Rolling Stone, that makes perfects sense, if you've never read one. And I'm sure most people haven't. Link to comment
Junior Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 As for the people not thinking of hard news when they think of Rolling Stone, that makes perfects sense, if you've never read one. And I'm sure most people haven't. People that think Rolling Stone doesn't cover topical news stories read Rolling Stone the way they read Playboy for the articles. Link to comment
wildman Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 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. Soldiers are trained to shoot center mass as it's the bigger area and normally exposed. The 5.56mm they shoot doesn't pack much punch. Combined with how the M16/A2 and M4's are designed makes it easier to shoot and keep on target. That's all I remember learning about the round of choice while in the military. According to discovery channel I think Myth Busters the 5.56mm won't go straight through normally. Instead when it hits the target it bounces and tumbles around. Creating a lot of internal damage. So with shooting center mass your more than likely going to hit or damage a vital organ like the lungs or heart. Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 1, 2013 Author Share Posted August 1, 2013 It did what it was intended to do. Shocking. The joke’s on us: Rolling Stone sales double with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on cover Bolstering the age-old mantra that even bad publicity is good, Rolling Stones magazine has seen sales of its latest edition double — the one that pictures Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in rockstar mode on its cover. Several retail outlets around the nation, including CVS, refused to sell the edition. But in the end, it didn’t hit at the magazine’s bottom line. Link to comment
ADS Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will face death penalty. BOSTON (AP) — U.S. prosecutors on Thursday announced they will seek the death penalty against 20-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the Boston Marathon bombing, instantly raising the stakes in what could be one of the most wrenching trials the city has ever seen. http://news.yahoo.com/us-prosecutors-seek-execution-marathon-suspect-191441459.html 'Murica!! 2 Link to comment
EbylHusker Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Why does ADS have a picture of the Boston Marathon bomber as his user photo? Link to comment
Mavric Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Guilty verdict. Facing the death penalty. Link to comment
Recommended Posts