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.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
Dying magazine selling to a retarded consumer.
To sell magazines.
Rolling stone just wants attention and money. No other reason.
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.
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.
Well they're just showing how innocent he seemed. And how we may judge people. Idk.
I would want to know why before I'd say why not.
If any publicity is good publicity...
If I edited Rolling Stone, the lines between Backstreet Boys and terrorists would blur a little too...
Publicity so that they can make more money.
This country is getting more petty every day. It's a magazine cover.
My my my, what a lot of free publicity they're getting this week.....
Wait, what was the question?
I can understand the story (on why he turned in to what he is today) but why not use his booking photo?
So the picture, and not that he's on the cover, is your source of contention? Seems a bit petty.
I agree that the picture was odd. He looked like a teens idol. They added some sex appeal there.
Pissed me off too
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".
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?
Know why jonny? Because someone told all these people they should be upset.
What? O Reilly's upset? Dammit, got it wrong again!
Of coarse he's upset, that is his job.
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.
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....
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.....
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.
As someone above said, how is this any worse than the weeks and weeks and weeks of 24/7 news coverage?
It's not, both are uncalled for.
It's your party Rob. This is what they do.
What is what who does?
How is this party specific?
If the chief editor of Rolling Stone was a republican or libertarian do you think he would have done the same thing?
HA HAHAHAHAHH NO!
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
Geez, Susan, you are on a roll tonight!
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?
Well, it took me like 5 minutes to find this stuff... I forget where I saw the Slate article first. Facebook, probably.
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.
This cover doesn't bother me at all. I think this one is fantastic!
Clearly states "monsters next door" and shows victims.
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.
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.
For once I....I agree with Susan.....
Susan - it's that the layout between the two covers are so different.
HAS ANYBODY ACTUALLY *READ* THE ROLLING STONES ARTICLE?
Of course not
Or the Slate article I linked to?
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.
Lol of course it back fired, look at the outrage! This is America, we look at pictures. Great articles susan
Ok ok I'll read
Take a look at the next one, z, above.
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
Uh, Rolling Stone. Not Rolling StoneS.
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.
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.
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.
LMB! Liberal Media Bias.
In what way?
They are considered the Media, they are Liberal, and they are known to be biased.
No argument on the broader point. But, can you address the bias as it pertains to the cover and article?
Is there a such thing as marketing ethics?
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.)
I like the point that this exact picture was on the New York Times too
Why z? What difference does it make?
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?
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
To think this is some how glamorizing him. It just isn't a scary looking picture like we like to see.
I'm upset about it because it's glamorizing a criminal. They have him looking like the boy next door
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.
I guess I don't get the point of the cover
And EB, I wrote that reply before I saw your "boy next door" comment.
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.
Did you read the Slate article I linked to, EB?
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.
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.
Uh, to sell magazines and get publicity.
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."
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.
Perspective: hitler and Manson...both on the cover of Time magazine. Sell. Sell. Sell.
Puts it in perspective!
Stupid people rule the publishing world.
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.
This dude has been posted up on the web, the tv, newspapers, but once he hits a magazine cover you're upset
Honestly, that is a great point
I agree extreme.
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...
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).
Now I agree with Tony
Zman117 I like the little clip you added in there lol
It sure is working out as good advertisement