Show of HandsShow of Hands

Rob July 17th, 2013 11:48pm

Ok. So I'm really annoyed right now. Why the hell is one of the Boston Bombers (not to be named here) on the COVER of the Rolling Stone Magazine looking like a Backstreet Boy.

24 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

pietsch Another Adoring Fan
07/18/13 7:24 pm

Dying magazine selling to a retarded consumer.

commonsense America isnt racist
07/18/13 7:13 am

Rolling stone just wants attention and money. No other reason.

Reply
pipes
07/18/13 3:55 am

Just becaus he is on the cover, doesn't mean they are idolizing him. Look at bin laden for example, people didn't think we were giving him more fame. So I don't mind.

Reply
jonny323
07/18/13 7:31 am

Someone pointed out to me yesterday that people most likely wouldn't consider it glorifying him if they didn't find the picture to be flattering.

pipes
07/18/13 8:31 am

Well they're just showing how innocent he seemed. And how we may judge people. Idk.

tdaddy Kentucky
07/18/13 3:06 am

I would want to know why before I'd say why not.

Nukimo NC Dreaming of Far Away
07/18/13 12:28 am

If any publicity is good publicity...

Reply
Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/17/13 10:22 pm

If I edited Rolling Stone, the lines between Backstreet Boys and terrorists would blur a little too...

Reply
GoFlo Peace Through Strength
07/17/13 9:19 pm

Publicity so that they can make more money.

Wert A picture of my junk
07/17/13 9:02 pm

This country is getting more petty every day. It's a magazine cover.

Reply
rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
07/17/13 8:45 pm

My my my, what a lot of free publicity they're getting this week.....


Wait, what was the question?

Reply
jonfrei the boonies
07/17/13 8:42 pm

Journalistic sensationalism...

Reply
huskermedic Cincinnati
07/17/13 7:47 pm

I can understand the story (on why he turned in to what he is today) but why not use his booking photo?

Reply
rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
07/18/13 2:56 am

So the picture, and not that he's on the cover, is your source of contention? Seems a bit petty.

dilbert The Dakotas
07/18/13 6:02 am

I agree that the picture was odd. He looked like a teens idol. They added some sex appeal there.

chickencookie It really is
07/17/13 7:24 pm

The editor at RS tweeted "maybe we should have drawn a duck on his face" and then deleted his tweet. Next hell deny saying that and claim his account "was hacked".

jonny323
07/17/13 7:12 pm

Where was all this outrage when we couldn't turn on a tv without hearing about this kid? Why does a magazine cover make him famous, but not multiple newspaper covers and being mentioned on every tv channel?

Reply
rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
07/18/13 2:57 am

Know why jonny? Because someone told all these people they should be upset.

What? O Reilly's upset? Dammit, got it wrong again!

jonny323
07/18/13 7:29 am

Of coarse he's upset, that is his job.

jonny323
07/17/13 7:04 pm

They wrote a story about him and thought it was worthy of being the cover story based on how many sales they expected it would cause.

Rob Be Safe Be Smart
07/17/13 6:55 pm

Ok, so the annoyed part was more at my car battery that I just had to change out in a Walmart parking lot with 2 of the wrong tools and a crappy flashlight....

Rob Be Safe Be Smart
07/17/13 6:56 pm

I was more confused by the cover than anything. I feel like someone else will be like "If I do this I can get that...." It scares me that other failed youths would copycat hoping for the same result..not dieing and becoming a star.....

Rob Be Safe Be Smart
07/17/13 6:59 pm

I also understand what the article is trying to do...he's an American, doesn't look like your cookie cutter terrorist.. I just don't like how they used such a 'dreamy' picture and make someone who has done a horrible thing, look like the victim.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
07/18/13 2:58 am

As someone above said, how is this any worse than the weeks and weeks and weeks of 24/7 news coverage?

Rob Be Safe Be Smart
07/18/13 10:38 am

It's not, both are uncalled for.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/17/13 6:10 pm

It's your party Rob. This is what they do.

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 6:22 pm

What is what who does?

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/17/13 7:01 pm

If the chief editor of Rolling Stone was a republican or libertarian do you think he would have done the same thing?

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 6:02 pm

Did drug stores boycott THIS cover picture? Did we rise up in outrage about THIS? www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990503,00.html

Reply
zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 6:03 pm

Geez, Susan, you are on a roll tonight!

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 6:04 pm

Maybe we did. I don't remember. I think the intended message got across pretty well in that one, though. Is it different now just because it's Rolling Stone? (They DO publish non-music articles.) Or because it's post-9/11 & he's Muslim? WHAT?

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 6:04 pm

Well, it took me like 5 minutes to find this stuff... I forget where I saw the Slate article first. Facebook, probably.

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 6:05 pm

Everybody is just totally missing the point. They are like "oh Rolling Stone likes the terrorist, they are glamorizing him!"
No people, the point is that he was one of us. You just enjoy seeing them with a scary face, but that is not reality.

EarlyBird Portland
07/17/13 6:09 pm

This cover doesn't bother me at all. I think this one is fantastic!

EarlyBird Portland
07/17/13 6:10 pm

Clearly states "monsters next door" and shows victims.

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 6:28 pm

In my opinion, the RS cover does almost the same thing. The Columbine boys are so pretty in their picture. The RS cover as much as says "boy next door" too "popular, promising student"), & you used almost the same phrase yourself.

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 6:29 pm

It also calls the bomber a monster. What's the difference? No photos of the victims in the RS cover. Is that a deliberate lack? Or that the RS cover style is different than Time? I think the latter. Otherwise - it's almost exactly the same.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
07/18/13 2:58 am

For once I....I agree with Susan.....

EarlyBird Portland
07/18/13 6:49 am

Susan - it's that the layout between the two covers are so different.

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 5:53 pm

HAS ANYBODY ACTUALLY *READ* THE ROLLING STONES ARTICLE?

Reply
zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:54 pm

Of course not

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 5:54 pm

Or the Slate article I linked to?

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 5:56 pm

I think what Rolling Stones tried to do has backfired - unless people can stop reacting to the picture long enough to understand why they used the picture.

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:57 pm

Lol of course it back fired, look at the outrage! This is America, we look at pictures. Great articles susan

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 6:02 pm

Take a look at the next one, z, above.

EarlyBird Portland
07/17/13 6:06 pm

Ok, I read what I expected to read. That bombers don't look like bad guys.
We already know that. Serial killers don't look like serial killers. We know that too.

I guess I just disagree on this

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 6:07 pm

Uh, Rolling Stone. Not Rolling StoneS.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
07/18/13 2:59 am

The article won't be published until Friday, so no, most people here haven't. The article is more journalistic and everyone here is over reacting.

Wert A picture of my junk
07/17/13 5:52 pm

It's just a magazine cover. Why does it matter? If all you have to gripe about is a magazine cover, you must live a rather simplistic life.

Reply
chickencookie It really is
07/17/13 5:34 pm

Cvs walgreens k mart and rite aid are not selling it. I like the way rs said that their readers represent the terrorist age group. Who knew the bomber was in his 60's.

Reply
comppete Las Vegas
07/17/13 5:31 pm

LMB! Liberal Media Bias.

Reply
comppete Las Vegas
07/17/13 6:09 pm

They are considered the Media, they are Liberal, and they are known to be biased.

Wert A picture of my junk
07/17/13 7:38 pm

No argument on the broader point. But, can you address the bias as it pertains to the cover and article?

eLucidate writing
07/17/13 5:25 pm

Is there a such thing as marketing ethics?

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 5:21 pm

According to this article in Slate, it was a brilliant & deliberate move, having to do with the bomber NOT looking like the terrorist we might expect, so there's an intended lesson there. (Which may have backfired.)
tinyurl.com/mymovby

Reply
zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:27 pm

I like the point that this exact picture was on the New York Times too

EarlyBird Portland
07/17/13 5:41 pm

Why z? What difference does it make?

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:45 pm

That shows how our media is again, why was there no outrage then? The right person complained about this and boom, turns into a "big story". Why did we all on here not care when it happened before but you do now?

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:49 pm

And honestly, I agree with the guy from the Washington Post. People for some reason expect to see something and are shocked when they see something else. I mean what is so crazy about this picture? It's just his face. Absolute nonsense

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:50 pm

To think this is some how glamorizing him. It just isn't a scary looking picture like we like to see.

EarlyBird Portland
07/17/13 5:51 pm

I'm upset about it because it's glamorizing a criminal. They have him looking like the boy next door

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 5:52 pm

The fact that he looks normal, perhaps attractive, is THE WHOLE POINT. He's a monster - who doesn't look like a monster, & wasn't always a monster, & could have been the kid next door. It's NOT glamorizing him.

EarlyBird Portland
07/17/13 5:52 pm

I guess I don't get the point of the cover

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 5:53 pm

And EB, I wrote that reply before I saw your "boy next door" comment.

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:54 pm

I just do not agree with that at all EB. Trying to portray someone a certain way is dangerous. Of course he wasn't a "regular" person, because he killed people! That isn't being denied. But to somehow think he should look different? Outrageous.

susanr Colorado
07/17/13 5:54 pm

Did you read the Slate article I linked to, EB?

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:56 pm

EB, the point of the cover is he is an American! He is like you me, and everybody else. He does blend in, that's a fact. He does look like the boy next door, sorry to disappoint. That is the world we live in.

EarlyBird Portland
07/17/13 5:57 pm

Ok here's where we see it differently. I don't see a picture of some guy. I see someone who almost had a glamor shot taken.

kermie gaytopia
07/17/13 5:17 pm

Uh, to sell magazines and get publicity.

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
07/17/13 5:10 pm

There would be criticism of any photo they might have used, so why not this one? The tagline tells you where they're coming from: "The Bomber: How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster."

Reply
Melon No Ducklips
07/17/13 5:04 pm

Journalists have a free pass to stir the pot, or just be a-holes. Whichever sells more copies. I heard a lot of stores wouldn't even sell them. Good for them.

Reply
Melon No Ducklips
07/17/13 5:06 pm

Perspective: hitler and Manson...both on the cover of Time magazine. Sell. Sell. Sell.

PartyFree Nowhere in Particular
07/17/13 5:02 pm

Stupid people rule the publishing world.

Reply
susanr Colorado
07/17/13 5:00 pm

Supposedly it's the same photo that was used on the front page of the NYT. I don't remember anyone complaining about it there. RS *does* do articles about things other than music. Slate had a piece about why it's a good, & important, article.

Reply
blujay5678
07/17/13 4:51 pm

This dude has been posted up on the web, the tv, newspapers, but once he hits a magazine cover you're upset

Reply
zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 4:52 pm

Honestly, that is a great point

MrLove lovers, dreamers and me
07/17/13 5:09 pm

I agree extreme.

Tony SOH Founder
07/17/13 5:13 pm

Magazine covers, especially certain ones, do occupy a special place compared to other many other media outlets. They get released just once a month, and there's only *one* spot. They don't call them "cover girls" for nothing...

Tony SOH Founder
07/17/13 5:15 pm

Whereas newspapers, TV, and the web are churning new crap through daily at least. The "front page" doesn't mean as much when there are 31 of them (papers) compared to 1 (magazines).

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 5:17 pm

Now I agree with Tony
youtu.be/0oaVN0PXwHo

blujay5678
07/17/13 5:18 pm

Zman117 I like the little clip you added in there lol

zman117 Ohio
07/17/13 4:50 pm

It sure is working out as good advertisement

Reply