bunomatic Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 I won't buy it (I wasn't going to anyway) and I am not offended by it, but I completely understand why someone would be. It's irresponsible. There is no doubt that that cover makes him look cool (if I had no idea who he was, I could easily believe that he was the lead singer in an up and coming group). If some young disenfranchised reader, who's got nothing else going on in his life sees that such an awful act can get you on the cover of Rolling Stone, who knows what they might do? Those were my thoughts. I'm not sure if Dr.Hook made the cover but if they did all they had to do was write a song about it. All this kid had to do was maim 260 people and kill several others. As another post said the recovery of one of the victims or one of the rescuers should have been highlighted. But we all know that good news doesn't sell magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 I'd like to add that part of the mags appeal at least in making the cover was that it showed that you had made it. Made it as in finally gained mass appeal. It was also considered an honour once apon a time. Not so sure anymore. To each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 I won't buy it (I wasn't going to anyway) and I am not offended by it, but I completely understand why someone would be. It's irresponsible. There is no doubt that that cover makes him look cool (if I had no idea who he was, I could easily believe that he was the lead singer in an up and coming group). If some young disenfranchised reader, who's got nothing else going on in his life sees that such an awful act can get you on the cover of Rolling Stone, who knows what they might do? Aren't we already at that phase though with all these mass shootings? The massive press coverage all these things get has to play a big role in the next shooting. So if anyone was going to bomb an event due to some media coverage, they've already received all the inspiration they need. I can't picture anyone out there thinking "well, I wasn't going to do this, but then I read Rolling Stone..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Blaming the media is like a morbidly obese person blaming Pizza Hut for his diabetes. What was I supposed to do, they put the cheese INSIDE the crust! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Blaming the media is like a morbidly obese person blaming Pizza Hut for his diabetes. What was I supposed to do, they put the cheese INSIDE the crust! But it's Rolling Stone! Find me one person who doesn't live and die by that magazine. I'm already going through RS withdrawal since no store around here is willing to sell this edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Not sure if its been mentioned and I apologize if it has but apparently Charlie Manson made the cover while he was on trial for murder. So perhaps RS isn't straying too far from what got it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Not sure if its been mentioned and I apologize if it has but apparently Charlie Manson made the cover while he was on trial for murder. So perhaps RS isn't straying too far from what got it here. I'm scrolling through a list of previous covers and I also see OJ Simpson. I'm actually a bit surprised to not see Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman anywhere on that list, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that one eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 How did it glorify him? Because he looks like a teen idol? I don't get it. Did you read the subhead? It pretty clearly explains what the story is all about. How did an All-American kid become, allegedly, a terrorist? your average dumbass (american) doesnt read anything beyond the headline amd look at the picture. Even putting a unflattering mugshot would make him a idol to some. There is a reason political soundbites are so popular... They work. Magazine covers and there headline are the equal to soundbites imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ForTripping Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 your average dumbass (american) doesnt read anything beyond the headline amd look at the picture. Even putting a unflattering mugshot would make him a idol to some. There is a reason political soundbites are so popular... They work. Magazine covers and there headline are the equal to soundbites imo ....your average dumbass is one who is 'merican not an American , huge difference between the 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 My wife was all fired up about this last night. I figure it went one of two ways: - RS decided to drum up controversy to sell magazines. If you're generous, they really thought they had done important work and they want to get as many eyes on it as they can. If you're not generous, it's a ploy to sell as many magazines as possible. Without knowing what's in their hearts, we don't really know. - RS was fairly blind-sided and didn't think it was a big deal. Did people flip out when they put OJ (as I learned upthread) or Mason on the cover? I guess my other question is: does anyone young and impressionable actually read Rolling Stone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Wegmans will not sell the "controversial" RS issue: @WGRZ .@Wegmans Won't Carry Controversial @RollingStone Issue http://on.wgrz.com/13mDLqo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Shame on them, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Shame on them, I guess. It just seems much easier to say "shut up" than to have an actual conversation, real dialogue about the issues these people face. A conversation where people could understand why this kid did such an act. He didn't seem to be one of the stereotypical "radical Muslim from the Middle East" types. I am in no way condoning what he did but there's is nothing wrong with putting his picture on a magazine cover to spark a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 It just seems much easier to say "shut up" than to have an actual conversation, real dialogue about the issues these people face. A conversation where people could understand why this kid did such an act. He didn't seem to be one of the stereotypical "radical Muslim from the Middle East" types. I am in no way condoning what he did but there's is nothing wrong with putting his picture on a magazine cover to spark a conversation. ] EXACTLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 It just seems much easier to say "shut up" than to have an actual conversation, real dialogue about the issues these people face. A conversation where people could understand why this kid did such an act. He didn't seem to be one of the stereotypical "radical Muslim from the Middle East" types. I am in no way condoning what he did but there's is nothing wrong with putting his picture on a magazine cover to spark a conversation. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Eleven @ElevenInBuffalo 34m @WGRZ @Wegmans @RollingStone Shame on you, Wegmans. I expected better. We have dialogue in this country & the article is an important one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 It just seems much easier to say "shut up" than to have an actual conversation, real dialogue about the issues these people face. A conversation where people could understand why this kid did such an act. He didn't seem to be one of the stereotypical "radical Muslim from the Middle East" types. I am in no way condoning what he did but there's is nothing wrong with putting his picture on a magazine cover to spark a conversation. Agreed. Besides, it's not like this is some brand new photograph nobody has seen before--which makes some stores banning its sale all the more ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 It just seems much easier to say "shut up" than to have an actual conversation, real dialogue about the issues these people face. A conversation where people could understand why this kid did such an act. He didn't seem to be one of the stereotypical "radical Muslim from the Middle East" types. I am in no way condoning what he did but there's is nothing wrong with putting his picture on a magazine cover to spark a conversation. What magazine doesn't use a cover photo related to the top story so that the public knows what that issue talks about? I'm sure we will find plenty others that ran front page pictures of either the brothers or the destruction they caused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 What magazine doesn't use a cover photo related to the top story so that the public knows what that issue talks about? I'm sure we will find plenty others that ran front page pictures of either the brothers or the destruction they caused. This exact photo was on the front page of the NYT above the fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Rolling Stone has a long history of controversial covers (Janet, Britney, Gaga, et al) and they have a history of publishing cover stories on killers (Charles Manson, et al). Rolling Stone hasn't changed, but the perception of the cult of personality by one part of our society certainly has. There's a population of people that believe that evil-doers should not be publicized, and they exercise their right to voice displeasure with the media coverage of a topic, but it's a retarded twist of irony and hypocrisy for them to call for the censorship of that topic. Retailers and business owners also have the right to sell or not sell products at their whim. By banning a publication, you foster censorship while simultaneously fostering publicity for that publication. Without the banning, I, and others, would not have been aware of the article (nor would we have been aware of these retailers' censorship practices). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Rolling Stone has a long history of controversial covers (Janet, Britney, Gaga, et al) and they have a history of publishing cover stories on killers (Charles Manson, et al). Rolling Stone hasn't changed, but the perception of the cult of personality by one part of our society certainly has. There's a population of people that believe that evil-doers should not be publicized, and they exercise their right to voice displeasure with the media coverage of a topic, but it's a retarded twist of irony and hypocrisy for them to call for the censorship of that topic. Retailers and business owners also have the right to sell or not sell products at their whim. By banning a publication, you foster censorship while simultaneously fostering publicity for that publication. Without the banning, I, and others, would not have been aware of the article (nor would we have been aware of these retailers' censorship practices). Yep, this was part of the discussion I had with my wife. I don't think I've seen or thought about an issue of RS since... at least 15 years. It's unlikely I'll buy a copy now, but that's a better chance than "would never occur to me in the least". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 So just as there's an argument that "bombing people is wrong and the bombers shouldn't receive any publicity for that," a similar arguments could be made, "exploiting bombers is wrong and Rolling Stone shouldn't receive any publicity for that," and "banning publications is wrong (or at least stupid), anf the stores shouldn't receive any publicity for that." Grossly different scales of wrong-ness, of course, but the logic train holds it together. By loudly calling for censorship, you're trying to put out a fire by pouring gas on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 This Rolling Stone thing is getting dumber by the minute. I'm one page into the article, and it seems compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 This Rolling Stone thing is getting dumber by the minute. I'm one page into the article, and it seems compelling. Just got my copy from the mailbox. Let's see what all this outrage is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 It's fairly typical of society these days. Most people never see past the cover/surface of anything. Perhaps if society stopped idolizing people put on magazine covers the appearance of someone like this wouldn't stir the same feeling. It's just a picture. Who's to blame for the interpretation? I don't see it as glamorous. Every time I see his picture I associate it with the events that happened. I don't forget and I am sure as hell not thinking of him as a rock start a la Jim Morrison like the overreactionists like to claim. I'll bet the article is actually quite good. It might actually be real journalism? Oh well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.