Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev On Rolling Stone Magazine Cover  
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Major Epic Fail on Rolling Stone magazine's part IMHO.

http://now.msn.com/rolling-stone-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-cover-criticized

Opening Excerpt:

Rolling Stone magazine should probably have foreseen that putting a terrorism suspect on its cover would not be a warmly welcomed decision. Almost as soon as the publication announced that alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would front its next issue, complaints lit up around social media. One Twitter user condemned the "rock star" imagery, while a Facebook page was started calling for a boycott of the magazine.


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10032 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No different than Time putting whomever on the cover of their "Person of the Year" issue every year.

It's a magazine, and the cover story is apparently about Tsarnaev. If others have a problem with it, then perhaps RS shouldn't have done it (from a strictly business perspective), but doesn't bother me at all.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Thread starter):
Major Epic Fail

Why? The feature article of that particular edition is about "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster". What else should they put a picture of?

As Americans (and to some degree Canadians as well), you need to break this mindset that publicizing something is the same as glorifying it. Stop being afraid of facing something very ugly, like looking at this terrorist in the face on a magazine shelf. I'm sure this story is very insightful, and sheds light and how a perfectly normal man became one of the most infamous terrorists in the world, or else it wouldn't be the cover story.

Also, Rolling Stones is a business in a very competitive industry. They need to step outside people's comfort zones sometimes in order to get out there and make sales. This ought to stir up some publicity and get people talking (which it obviously already has).



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2056 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1):
No different than Time putting whomever on the cover of their "Person of the Year" issue every year.

There's a bit of a difference here. Magazines like Time, Newsweek, etc. are *cough* *cough* news periodicals where a picture of a killer or dicatator on the cover is warranted if they (or something about them) made news. Time's Man of the Year for 1979 cover featured Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini because he made news due to the Iranian Revolution and the US Hostage Crisis that was taking place at the time.

OTOH Rolling Stone, to most people anyway, is more of a pop culture magazine. Yes, it has a political section but the pic that was chosen and the basic article gives the impression that the magazine is (at least attempting) elevating this terrorist suspect to a 'rock star' status (the chosen cover pic almost makes Tsarnaev look like Bob Dylan) and possibly influence its readers to sympathize w/Tsarnaev. During his appearance in court last week, there were Tsarnaev sympathizers gathering outside the court building; many of them young females (who think he's hot looking). One could only imagine an even bigger uproar had RS did similar article with the 9/11 terrorists and placed their images on the cover 2 to 3 months following the attacks.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1):
If others have a problem with it, then perhaps RS shouldn't have done it (from a strictly business perspective)

Correct. Given that the Boston Marathon Bombing happened just 3 months ago; this front page pic and article does appear to be a slap in the face to the family members of the those that died and those that were injured during that week in April.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10032 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
you need to break this mindset that publicizing something is the same as glorifying it.

  

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 3):
OTOH Rolling Stone, to most people anyway, is more of a pop culture magazine.

Call it what you want, but they have news articles as well (or at least what they consider news articles). To be broad, let's call them "current event" articles. It's not all pop culture by any means, and anyone who picks up any issue of RS can see that.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 3):
Yes, it has a political section but the pic that was chosen and the basic article gives the impression that the magazine is (at least attempting) elevating this terrorist suspect to a 'rock star' status (the chosen cover pic almost makes Tsarnaev look like Bob Dylan) and possibly influence its readers to sympathize w/Tsarnaev.

Please. It's a cover story. Cover stories usually feature their subjects on the cover. The photo was featured in the New York Times and elsewhere, according to the link you provided. It's a photo Tsarnaev took of himself, also according to said link. It's not like RS photographers brought him down to the studio for a photo shoot.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 3):
Correct. Given that the Boston Marathon Bombing happened just 3 months ago; this front page pic and article does appear to be a slap in the face to the family members of the those that died and those that were injured during that week in April.

I don't believe it's a slap in the face to anyone. To be honest, all those photos showing victims maimed, with missing limbs, etc., are far more of a slap in the face in my opinion.

Again, maybe it will be a bad business decision, but let me ask this - does it offend you, or do you just think that it might offend others? Do you think RS is glorifying or sympathizing with Tsarnaev, or are you worried that others might think so?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Again, maybe it will be a bad business decision, but let me ask this - does it offend you, or do you just think that it might offend others?

Yes on both counts. I'm originally from Greater Boston area and attended the race many times prior to moving to the Philly area nearly 23 years ago. I had friends from the Philly area that actually ran the marathon that day (thankfully, they finished their runs prior to the bombs going off). So this matter hits a bit close to home for me.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Do you think RS is glorifying or sympathizing with Tsarnaev, or are you worried that others might think so?

Yes, on both counts. Given how the media at large was only showing pictures of a younger (by about 4 years) Trayvon Martin throughout the past year until very recently; I would not put it past RS of subtly doing the above one iota.

Update FYI: CVS (headquartered in Woonsocket, RI) recently announced that it will not be carrying the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone when it hits the newstands:

http://www.today.com/news/cvs-says-i...e-issue-bombing-suspect-6C10660674

Article Excerpt:

In the wake of controversy over the cover, CVS announced via its Facebook page that the pharmacy chain would not be selling the issue in its stores.

"CVS/pharmacy has decided not to sell the current issue of Rolling Stone featuring a cover photo of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect," the brand wrote on Wednesday. "As a company with deep roots in New England and a strong presence in Boston, we believe this is the right decision out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones."


Given the fact that you used to live and work in the Greater Boston area; I'm a bit surprised at your reaction to this subject. If you were still residing in the Bay State, I think your thoughts and opinions of RS' actions might be a little different... especially if you had friends and/or family either attending or participation in the Boston Marathon.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 3):
Given that the Boston Marathon Bombing happened just 3 months ago; this front page pic and article does appear to be a slap in the face to the family members of the those that died and those that were injured during that week in April.

Then may I assume that any magazine that ran a cover story of the 9/11 attacks within 3 months of that terrible day was also a slap in the face to those thousands of victims?

I recall that just about every publication did, and there was never any backlash whatsoever.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Please. It's a cover story. Cover stories usually feature their subjects on the cover. The photo was featured in the New York Times and elsewhere, according to the link you provided. It's a photo Tsarnaev took of himself, also according to said link. It's not like RS photographers brought him down to the studio for a photo shoot.

  

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
all those photos showing victims maimed, with missing limbs, etc., are far more of a slap in the face in my opinion.

  

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 5):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Do you think RS is glorifying or sympathizing with Tsarnaev, or are you worried that others might think so?

Yes, on both counts. Given how the media at large was only showing pictures of a younger (by about 4 years) Trayvon Martin throughout the past year until very recently; I would not put it past RS of subtly doing the above one iota.

So to be clear, you're accusing a major American publication of glorifying/sympathizing with a terrorist just because they put a picture of him on the front of their magazine, even though the article itself is about how he became such (in their own words) a monster? I just want to confirm that, because it seems to defy rational thought. It also confuses me that you use the Trayvon Martin case to somehow substantiate your accusation.  



Flying refined.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10032 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 5):
Given the fact that you used to live and work in the Greater Boston area; I'm a bit surprised at your reaction to this subject. If you were still residing in the Bay State, I think your thoughts and opinions of RS' actions might be a little different... especially if you had friends and/or family either attending or participation in the Boston Marathon.

No, my thoughts wouldn't be different. I may not live there anymore, but MA is and always will be home. I grew up there. I happen to be on my way to Logan right now after being here a week.

I DID have family attending AND participating in the marathon. I spent some very distracted, worried, angry, and upset hours that day trying to get in contact with everyone.

Opinion still the same. Can't control others' views, but I'm not disgusted/horrified/whatever.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 6):
Then may I assume that any magazine that ran a cover story of the 9/11 attacks within 3 months of that terrible day was also a slap in the face to those thousands of victims?

IIRC & at the time, most of the magazines (and again were more news-oriented in nature than RS) either did not post pics of the 19 hijackers on their covers or if they did, it was just the mugshots. Nothing that would give them the appearance of rock-stars.

The main focus of the objection to RS' cover (not just by me mind you) is the particular Tsarnaev pic that was chosen for the cover. Many believe that the pic. is a bit too flattering and elevates Tsarnaev to a celebrity/rock star status. Had RS used just his mugshot or the surviellance still of him just prior to the bombing; there probably would not be much of a controversey.

Yes, I'm aware that the particular pic. was previously used in a New York Times article; but that doesn't absolve RS from lapse of judgment.

FYI, Boston Mayor Menino has recently condemned RS' decision on their cover.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion..._rolling_stone_over_tsarnaev_cover

Mayor Thomas M. Menino today wrote to the publisher of Rolling Stone, telling him the decision to put accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of next month’s edition “rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment” — treatment the magazine should have given to the survivors.

“The survivors of the Boston attacks deserve Rolling Stone cover stories,” Menino wrote in a letter to Jann Wenner, ”though I no longer feel that Rolling Stone deserves them.”


Actual letter from Mayor Tom Menino to the publisher of RS magazine:

http://bostonherald.com/sites/defaul...2013/07/17/Menino_RollingStone.pdf

A more appropriate cover and article listings IMHO:



[Edited 2013-07-17 13:57:01]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5608 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 8):
The main focus of the objection to RS' cover (not just by me mind you) is the particular Tsarnaev pic that was chosen for the cover. Many believe that the pic. is a bit too flattering and elevates Tsarnaev to a celebrity/rock star status. Had RS used just his mugshot or the surviellance still of him just prior to the bombing; there probably would not be much of a controversey.

I believe the entire point is that he was a very normal (looking) guy, he is not, was not, a deformed or mug-shotted monster. He was us, he was a normal American. Or so it seemed. That is the point.

Now I suppose some here may jump up and down for daring to say "he is us" but that is the issue. How do you address that, stop that? We have bigger problems to solve and bigger questions to ask than this magazine cover.

And that is why freedom of the Press and of expression and of speech are so important.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8543 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 9):
I believe the entire point is that he was a very normal (looking) guy, he is not, was not, a deformed or mug-shotted monster. He was us, he was a normal American. Or so it seemed. That is the point.

What those boys deserve is having their heads on a pike and left so others can see it. I think 99% agree with that statement.

The way you deal with guys like that is at a minimum, you take away their ability to carry on with their campaign. Just like you get rid of a rat or cockroach problem.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 9):
I believe the entire point is that he was a very normal (looking) guy, he is not, was not, a deformed or mug-shotted monster. He was us, he was a normal American. Or so it seemed. That is the point.

  
The story is about how he changed from a seemingly smart and popular high schooler into a terrorist. We're all used to seeing him as a monster and that's what we think of immediately when we hear his name. The picture they chose is not only NOT a slap in the face to victims, but exactly the right photo to use as it gets the reader to see him for the first time as he was before his radicalization, which is a necessary part of a story about that transformation.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8153 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
As Americans (and to some degree Canadians as well), you need to break this mindset that publicizing something is the same as glorifying it. Stop being afraid of facing something very ugly, like looking at this terrorist in the face on a magazine shelf. I'm sure this story is very insightful, and sheds light and how a perfectly normal man became one of the most infamous terrorists in the world, or else it wouldn't be the cover story.

   The why is of much more substance than the cover photo.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
Also, Rolling Stone is a business in a very competitive industry. They need to step outside people's comfort zones sometimes in order to get out there and make sales.

This may very well be part of Wenner and the editors' thinking on this.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 3):
this front page pic and article does appear to be a slap in the face

Taste is difficult to control or regulate. Ask Larry Flynt.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 5):
Yes on both counts.

I can understand why you'd be offended or have an emotional reaction, but RS is a private entity, and you cannot tell them what they can/cannot publish simply because you don't like it.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 8):
Nothing that would give them the appearance of rock-stars.

That is a matter of perception, is it not?

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 8):
A more appropriate cover and article listings IMHO

That cover offends me when I think about putting one person's life story and tragic death on a pedestal over someone's that remains anonymous because they happened not to die in a public bombing.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days ago) and read 1692 times:

The cover reads "THE BOMBER, How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster." If that's glorification, I'd love to hear what constitutes criticism.

And, as an (seemingly) aside, it was an interesting article.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days ago) and read 1687 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 8):
Had RS used just his mugshot or the surviellance still of him just prior to the bombing; there probably would not be much of a controversey.

That goes against what the article is trying to convey. Again, the article is about how a normal guy became a radicalized terrorist. Everybody has seen the surveillance frames and mugshots, but normal picture of him really gets the message across.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 8):
A more appropriate cover and article listings IMHO:

Yes, if the story was about the victims. This story, on the other hand, is about the perpetrator. What about that concept is so difficult for you, CVS, and Mayor Merino to understand?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
What those boys deserve is having their heads on a pike and left so others can see it. I think 99% agree with that statement.

Well then call me the 1%! I believe in a civilized society where we don't put "heads on a pike" in public. Only savages would do such a thing...and before you say "these guys were savages!", I also don't universally believe in "an eye for an eye" either. One Tsarnaev is already dead, and the other will have his day in court, and when found guilty he will justly never taste freedom again.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12):
That is a matter of perception, is it not?

   Indeed. I personally perceive it to be a poor-quality Facebook photo, but some people will see it in whatever they feel will justify their anger.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12):
I can understand why you'd be offended or have an emotional reaction, but RS is a private entity, and you cannot tell them what they can/cannot publish simply because you don't like it.

   The thing about free speech is that it's not convenient for everyone all the time. In this case, if enough people disapprove of (what I find to be) a harmless selfie on a magazine cover, then let them speak with their wallets. That's their right.



Flying refined.
User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13115 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days ago) and read 1677 times:

I suspect many times RS has uses nice cover pictures of music celebrities that used illegal drugs, alcoholics, were sexual predators, did music and comments that were racist and offensive. I am quite sure RS covered the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, of those killed and injured in issues just after the bombing, including the actions of music celebrities raising funds and attention for the victims.

There is no doubt that the editors wanted attention and lots of readers to an important story, about a person that changed not only those killed and injured in Boston that day, but caused the biggest lockdown in US history. They wanted to use a picture that would be what a terrorist can look like, not typical picture of a terrorists. I do have an issue of glorifying and giving attention to the egos of terrorists, indeed it may encourage future terrorists. But I also think we need with several months of time passing, a sound work of journalism to look at what caused this accused person and his brother to become bombers is needed.

As to CVS and other retailers declining to sell this issue, that is their business choice. They could also do like with Playboy, Cosmopolitan and the like magazines and put it behind the counter or with a cover board but for the magazine title showing and cover what some would consider offensive. Meanwhile CVS is a bunch of hypocrites, selling prescription drugs and other goods at huge profit margins, selling food, beverages and OTC drugs that are far worse than the picture in a magazine.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1637 times:

I don't understand the controversy around this cover. Dzhokhar helped assemble and set off the bombs. We should never ever forget the victims but we should never ever forget those who would do harm against us. Let's not forget that not all terrorists wear traditional dress. They can look like anyone.

And we can never be afraid of those who strive to do us harm.

Maybe a better cover would be pictures of all the victims and one of Dzhokhar.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
The feature article of that particular edition is about "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster".

Which means they already absolve the man of any personal responsibility for becoming a monster, so it will naturally be labelled drek by most of us in New England and many others elsewhere. Clearly his brother influenced him strongly, but clearly he had plenty of other influences to choose from, and he chose the path of evil. Add to that the sympathetic "rock star" photo and you get a perfect storm of drek. Plenty of drek to cover everyone involved, IMHO. As far as I'm concerned, this particular issue is good for    wipe, not much else. The man is in OUR house now. Don't count on him ever seeing the light of day. He should be glad if not seeing light is the worst thing that happens to him.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 15):
Meanwhile CVS is a bunch of hypocrites, selling prescription drugs and other goods at huge profit margins, selling food, beverages and OTC drugs that are far worse than the picture in a magazine.

Eh? Why link all this stuff? They took a stand on one issue, the topic of this thread. Why tie it to all kinds of other stuff, much of which is beyond their control?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Which means they already absolve the man of any personal responsibility for becoming a monster

Hardly. I actually read the article, and it doesn't absolve him of anything. There's surprisingly little emphasis put on Tamerlan's influence over him. I'd have to say the author did a pretty good job not tilting the scales in either direction.

Whether you like it or not, Revelation, not every terrorist is born a terrorist. Rolling Stone was simply the first to tell the story of what this guy was like before he turned down a very dark road. Putting up any picture other than one of him looking "innocent" would completely defeat the purpose of the article. As has been mentioned several times, the aim is to show how even a promising, young man can go astray and cause a lot of harm...and what better way to do that than show what he was like when he did have potential?

Also, to address yours and PHLBOS' concern about him looking like a "rockstar", what is it exactly you're worried about? Anybody that believes he's guilty isn't going to change their minds all of a sudden because they saw a semi-flattering picture on an entertainment magazine down at the local pharmacy. Even if there were a person who was swayed by such a harmless piece of marketing, that person is a bloody moron and is no doubt in the extreme minority.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
The man is in OUR house now.

Well, he's an American citizen, so it's technically his house too.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 15):
including the actions of music celebrities raising funds and attention for the victims.

A quick search shows that they did publish a handful of articles about artists raising money for victims.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 15):
Meanwhile CVS is a bunch of hypocrites, selling prescription drugs and other goods at huge profit margins, selling food, beverages and OTC drugs that are far worse than the picture in a magazine.

I don't think it necessarily makes them hypocrites. It doesn't really matter what they sell or at what profit margin, they're just trying to win brownie points with the public. They realize that whatever lost sales they'll incur from two weeks of not selling that edition of Rolling Stone will be more than made up by gullible people who will march in there with their patriotism flags held high...until they go back to their usual pharmacy ten days later when they forget about the whole thing.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
The feature article of that particular edition is about "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster". What else should they put a picture of?

How about Tsarnaev in a jailhouse jumpsuit and shackles accompanying the other photo so they can show the "before and after" as it were?

I think the point is that historically, the photo on the cover of Rolling Stone has typically been promoting or celebrating individuals, their achievements, etc. and the photos are done in such a manner to showcase that individual, event, achievement, and so on. The photo of Tsarnaev is consistent with the "cool guy" photos of rock stars that typically grace the cover, hence the not-unrealistic perception that he's somehow being glamorized.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8153 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 19):
The photo of Tsarnaev is consistent with the "cool guy" photos of rock stars that typically grace the cover, hence the not-unrealistic perception that he's somehow being glamorized.

I guess it's asking too much to expect people to read the caption in which he's entitled 'Monster'



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1583 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):

Hardly. I actually read the article, and it doesn't absolve him of anything.

Then why the sympathetic picture? As above, that picture besides one of him in a prison jumpsuit, or one of him on the surveillance cameras planting the bomb would be a lot more balanced.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):
Whether you like it or not, Revelation, not every terrorist is born a terrorist.

And whether you like it or not, not everyone born a non-terrorist becomes a terrorist.

This particular individual had lots of context to help him decide what he wanted to be.

He just chose very poorly. In fact he chose to make himself a criminal.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):
Well, he's an American citizen, so it's technically his house too.

Jeffrey Dahmer was born an American citizen and that didn't work out so well for him...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

On a fun note, even the #FreeJahar groupies are not happy with the cover. They, in fact, say that he's not dreamy enough in the Rolling Stone cover.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/not-dr...-shriek-about-rolling-stone-cover/

To be fair, however, I read the article, and I see nothing wrong with the cover per se. A magazine cover is supposed to be an invitation for people to actually read what the cover's about, and in this case, there is an invitation to read about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (note that the magazine clearly says he was the bomber) and his story. Clearly they intended to do this, based on what I'm seeing around the Internet.

I think it's only right to get all sides of the issue covered here. That would include trying to get to know him. Whether or not it has an impact on how we perceive him and the case however is beyond the purview of Rolling Stone.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
I guess it's asking too much to expect people to read the caption in which he's entitled 'Monster'

Because naturally, that's all they'll see - right?   

C'mon, you're better than that ridiculous comment you just made.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8153 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
He just chose very poorly. In fact he chose to make himself a criminal.

Which is the point of the RS piece on him, not the friggin' cover.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 23):
Because naturally, that's all they'll see - right?

No come on, really, you're asking a private publishing entity to take responsibility for what viewers of the cover will and will not see? That is not their angle, and never has been.

And I have always been consistent on free speech, and am making no such diversions on this one.

A brief sample:

glamor covers



serious covers

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1374117550/882/8935882.jpg



Editorially, this cover is consistent with their past work. I'm sure in 1976 some hypersensitive folks cried "Charles Manson is humanized by this cover - he looks like he's watching a rainbow!"



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6816 posts, RR: 34
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

Piss on Jann Wenner, that lefist rag Rolling Stone, the abortion they call the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and all of it.

BTW, James Woods has some great Tweets about his feelings on the matter. Strong.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24):
And I have always been consistent on free speech, and am making no such diversions on this one.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is a free speech issue; just a poor taste one.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinevictrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 514 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1480 times:

Rolling Stone, gonna get my picture on the cover
Rolling Stone, gonna buy 5 copies for my iman
Rolling Stone, gonna see my Jihadi face
On the cover of the Rolling Stone


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8543 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 14):
Well then call me the 1%! I believe in a civilized society where we don't put "heads on a pike" in public. Only savages would do such a thing...and before you say "these guys were savages!", I also don't universally believe in "an eye for an eye" either. One Tsarnaev is already dead, and the other will have his day in court, and when found guilty he will justly never taste freedom again.

What about the next brothers to do this? Their #1 concern is how they will be viewed and judged by the culture. The law, sentencing etc don't matter to them. If we fail to condemn these guys, if we grant them fair time to air their unimportant ideas, we give new guys the incentive to become terrorists.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1465 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 19):
I think the point is that historically, the photo on the cover of Rolling Stone has typically been promoting or celebrating individuals, their achievements, etc. and the photos are done in such a manner to showcase that individual, event, achievement, and so on. The photo of Tsarnaev is consistent with the "cool guy" photos of rock stars that typically grace the cover, hence the not-unrealistic perception that he's somehow being glamorized.

That's probably the fairest assessment I've seen in this thread so far. I concede that most Rolling Stone covers are of huge stars, of course photographed in a very attractive and positive light.

But with that said, I'm worried for the state of the education system in America if people can't grasp the fact that the cover is simply that, A COVER, to a story inside. If people are going to look at that picture and automatically assume Dzhokhar is a "rock star" without even taking 3 seconds to read the subtitle, or 20 minutes to read the article, then you guys really are doomed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
And whether you like it or not, not everyone born a non-terrorist becomes a terrorist.

This particular individual had lots of context to help him decide what he wanted to be.

He just chose very poorly. In fact he chose to make himself a criminal.

Why are you arguing about how he became a terrorist? My post concerned Rolling Stone's motivation for writing a piece on why he turned out the way he did.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 19):
How about Tsarnaev in a jailhouse jumpsuit and shackles accompanying the other photo so they can show the "before and after" as it were?

How do you put a before-and-after shot on a magazine cover without it looking like a tabloid? There's also the issue of everyone and their mother having seen the post-arrest shots of Dzhokhar, and these magazines aren't in the business of covering their publication with old news.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24):
serious covers

John Wilkes Booth is looking rather dapper in that Rolling Stone cover...better boycott them for supporting President assassination   

Quoting slider (Reply 25):
Piss on Jann Wenner, that lefist rag Rolling Stone, the abortion they call the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and all of it.

You have such a way with words  



Flying refined.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 3):
Correct. Given that the Boston Marathon Bombing happened just 3 months ago; this front page pic and article does appear to be a slap in the face to the family members of the those that died and those that were injured during that week in April.

So how did you think victims of IRA terrorism felt when the killers were lauded in parades in the US, (Boston being a hot spot for that), plus the arms and funding though that was, to be fair, illegal in the US, or have the likes of Pete King express support for them (isn't he the anti terror blowhard since his part of the world got hit?)
Off the top of my head, 28 dead in no warning pub bombings, 11 while at the annual service to remember the dead of two world wars, a dozen blown up in a nightclub, diners incinerated by a home made napalm device in a resturant, a couple of kids killed by a bomb planted in a trash bin in a shopping centre in the North Of England......and so many more.

What this man and his brother did in Boston was evil, malicious and pathetic. However they did not use, as charged, 'weapons of mass destruction' but a crude home made device.
Understanablly, the people who lost loved ones, who were maimed, who were there, won't see it as by any rational calculation, a minor terrorist attack carried out by untrained and ill equipped people who were not linked to any real organisation, but that is what is was.

To be brutally rational it was, in terms of dead and injured, far less worse than many mass shootings, in malls, schools, churches. Would the same objections if a magazine reported - as they must have done many times - of those who committed those acts? Cover photo included.

Stores are banning this edition?
Really?
Well if this is the reaction in a very large country, of over 300 million, then sad to say that in a very real sense, those brothers have won. Quite apart from the fact this sort of reaction may encourage others to copy the sort of attack carried in Boston.

Did Norway, who lost not only a lot of mostly young people, but from a population of 4 million, where most actually live in Oslo where the bombings that preceded the shootings took place, seek to ban, suppress, remove from shops, magazine articles with Brevik on the cover?


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 28):
What about the next brothers to do this? Their #1 concern is how they will be viewed and judged by the culture. The law, sentencing etc don't matter to them. If we fail to condemn these guys, if we grant them fair time to air their unimportant ideas, we give new guys the incentive to become terrorists.

And that somehow justifies your barbaric "solution"? If the sentencing doesn't matter to them, then what's the point of putting their heads on pikes? Surely it would only serve to give the enemy more ammo to hate you and carry out another attack? Furthermore, your judicial system is based on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". It's during this process that the accused are granted fair time to air whatever it is they have to say in their defense, as "unimportant" as you may perceive it to be.

It's been 3 months, man. Time to start thinking rationally.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1411 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24):
A brief sample:

serious covers
Look at the dates of those covers, 1976 and 2012 respectively; long (try years) after their murderous acts were committed (Tate murders in 1969, President Lincoln in 1865).

As I stated in one of my previous posts, RS' placing a large picture of Tsarnaev & publishing an article of this ilk only 3 months after the Marathon bombings is a bit too soon. If RS published this story and placed a pic on the cover after Tsarnaev's trial (he just entered his 30 'not guilty' pleas just last week); it would likely be less of a controversy.

IIRC, RS did not do an article on Timothy McVeigh nor place him on the cover in 1995. RS did not do a story or place a pic of Olympic bomber, Eric Robert Rudolph, immediately following the Summer 1996 Olympics. RS certainly could of, why didn't they?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 29):
I'm worried for the state of the education system in America if people can't grasp the fact that the cover is simply that, A COVER, to a story inside.

The state of the public education system in the U.S. is already a basketcase. If you've been following the GZ trial; the star witness for the prosecution was a 19-year-old who couldn't read cursive; something I learned back in the 2nd or 3rd grade (in public school might I add).

While it can be said that one can't judge a book by its cover; it can also be stated that first impressions are lasting impressions. Society, at large, can be influenced by pictures and visuals. Case and point: the first televised Presidential debate between Sen. (Jack) Kennedy and Vice-President Nixon in 1960. Those that only heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon did better; those that saw it on T.V. thought JFK did better. Nixon was sweating during that debate.

The RS article in and of itself may not be glorifying Tsarnaev per say; but their chosing of a flattering pic of him for its cover, to a degree, (unintentionally) sends a mix-message... caption or no caption.

I stated this earlier, had the press showed the more recent photo of Trayvon Martin (the 7-11 video still the night he was shot) rather than ones of him several years younger (and before puberty) when the news of his shooting hit the airwaves; would the level of sympathy for him be any less?

That said, selecting a certain picture (even if it was used elsewhere) can send a powerful message regardless what the words around it say. RS was clearly going for the shock & awe approach as a means to stimulate sales with the cover photo but they could find out, given the recent boycotts from stores and otherwise, that such a move is/was unwise this time around and could cost them money in the long run.

Kicking a northeastern city like Boston with this article and posting that pic of Tsarnaev while many are still healing from their bombing-related wounds (physically and emotionally) could be the equivalent of touching the 3rd rail.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 26):
I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is a free speech issue; just a poor taste one.

  

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 19):
I think the point is that historically, the photo on the cover of Rolling Stone has typically been promoting or celebrating individuals, their achievements, etc. and the photos are done in such a manner to showcase that individual, event, achievement, and so on. The photo of Tsarnaev is consistent with the "cool guy" photos of rock stars that typically grace the cover, hence the not-unrealistic perception that he's somehow being glamorized.

   Precisely.

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 22):
I think it's only right to get all sides of the issue covered here.

As I stated before, given the nature of what happened (a terrorist attack), there is a such thing as publishing something too soon. If RS, or anybody else for that matter, wants to do a story on Tsarnaev's history after his trial; then they can knock themselves out.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
The feature article of that particular edition is about "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster".

Which means they already absolve the man of any personal responsibility for becoming a monster, so it will naturally be labelled drek by most of us in New England and many others elsewhere. Clearly his brother influenced him strongly, but clearly he had plenty of other influences to choose from, and he chose the path of evil.

   Well put.

Emphais in Bold.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 15):
But I also think we need with several months of time passing.
   I agree.
____________________________

Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
Would the same objections if a magazine reported - as they must have done many times - of those who committed those acts? Cover photo included.

As I and a few other have mentioned before, the magazine in question here (Rolling Stone) is not a news magazine as much as it's a hip-oriented magazine that covers the music and movie culture with a sprinkling of news (& even politics) presented in a hipstep (and many critics would say 'leftist) point-of-view.

If Time or Newsweek (as examples) did similar; the controversy would either be less or non-existent. They would have also waited a while longer before publishing such.

Quoting victrola (Reply 27):
Rolling Stone, gonna get my picture on the cover
Rolling Stone, gonna buy 5 copies for my iman
Rolling Stone, gonna see my Jihadi face
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

Lol, now that's priceless.      


[Edited 2013-07-18 13:55:47]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
IIRC, RS did not do an article on Timothy McVeigh nor place him on the cover in 1995. RS did not do a story or place a pic of Olympic bomber, Eric Robert Rudolph, immediately following the Summer 1996 Olympics. RS certainly could of, why didn't they?

Why would they have to do an article on every terrorist? They aren't Time.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
it can also be stated that first impressions are lasting impressions

I met this guy at work when I was 17 and I hated his guts. Today we're best friends. So I don't necessarily believe in "first impressions are lasting impressions"  
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
but their chosing of a flattering pic of him for its cover, to a degree, (unintentionally) sends a mix-message... caption or no caption.

But on the other hand, would putting a very unflattering picture not send the wrong message? Once again, the article is about pre-terrorist Dzhokhar, so one would expect the cover picture to be one of pre-terrorist Dzhokhar. It's pretty boggling that people are failing to grasp that extremely simple concept.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
I stated this earlier, had the press showed the more recent photo of Trayvon Martin (the 7-11 video still the night he was shot) rather than ones of him several years younger (and before puberty) when the news of his shooting hit the airwaves; would the level of sympathy for him be any less?

I'm not disagreeing with your point here, but it's a rather poor comparison. In the Trayvon Martin case, sentiment is pretty much split 50-50 on a very contentious law, and optics could play a large role is tipping the scale to one side or another...whereas with the Tsarnaev brothers, 99.9% of people believe they're guilty, and the horrors of the crime are undeniable. The press' choice of pictures won't change a thing in the Tsarnaevs' case.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
Kicking a northeastern city like Boston with this article and posting that pic of Tsarnaev while many are still healing from their bombing-related wounds (physically and emotionally) could be the equivalent of touching the 3rd rail.

Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that Rolling Stone would intentionally try to offend the people of entire major city? If the people of Boston don't like seeing the kid's face on a magazine cover, then they better throw their TVs in the garbage and cancel their newspaper subscriptions because when the trial starts his face (including Facebook photos) will be everywhere.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
too soon

Everybody's opinion of "too soon" is different. Rolling Stone took a calculated risk to be the first mover on the topic. I'm not sure I would have done it differently.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
Why would they have to do an article on every terrorist? They aren't Time.

That being the case, then why are they (Rolling Stone) doing one on Tsarnaev? Shouldn't Time or US News and World Report be doing such (although months later IMHO, see below)?

Years before the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh was a Gulf-war veteran. Clearly one could make an article on when veterans go bad after returing from the battlefield.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
So I don't necessarily believe in "first impressions are lasting impressions"

See how that works on your next job interview. One doesn't always get a 2nd chance to redeem themselves.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that Rolling Stone would intentionally try to offend the people of entire major city?

Intentionally, no; but given RS' response, they basically (though subliminally) stated that they just don't care.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
If the people of Boston don't like seeing the kid's face on a magazine cover, then they better throw their TVs in the garbage and cancel their newspaper subscriptions because when the trial starts his face (including Facebook photos) will be everywhere.

Again, and I have stated this multiple times: a picture on a magazine cover is not the issue here but rather the picture (one looking somewhat glamorous) on the magazine cover (that many pop cultlure celebrities long to be on) along with the timing of such (before his trial has even started) is the issue here. Yes, RS had Manson on it as well as John Wilkes Booth but those covers and accompanying articles were published YEARS after their heinous actions (one of them being long since dead, the other would've been dead had it not been for a 1970s Supreme Court ruling that temporarily declared the death penalty unconstitutional).

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
Everybody's opinion of "too soon" is different.

Trust me, if terrorist(s) did something similar in your own backyard; I think you would agree that covering such (a profile or history of the killer on a pop culture-themed magazine) only 3 months afterwards would be too soon and be in bad taste given the particular magazine's genre.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
Rolling Stone took a calculated risk to be the first mover on the topic.

Key word there is risk. A rather unwise one IMHO at this point and time and could very well backfire on them (RS).

Article Update (from the Boston Herald):

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...lling_stone_cover_opens_raw_wounds

Opening Excerpt:

Rolling Stone Cover Opens Raw Wounds

Rolling Stone’s glam cover treatment of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — putting him in an iconic slot usually reserved for rock stars — drew outrage and newsstand boycotts yesterday and cut into the wounded hearts of people whose lives were shattered by the terrorist attack.

“They opened up some wounds that they had no business doing,” said Peter Brown of Stoughton, whose nephews J.P. and Paul Norden each lost their right legs in the April 15 Boylston Street attacks. “They owe the victims an apology. ... They make him look like a rock star hero. He’s not that. Why not use a picture of how he looks today? This kid is not a victim. He’s facing heinous charges.”


[Edited 2013-07-18 15:11:43]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 34):
That being the case, then why are they (Rolling Stone) doing one on Tsarnaev? Shouldn't Time or US News and World Report be doing such (although months later IMHO, see below)?

Years before the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh was a Gulf-war veteran. Clearly one could make an article on when veterans go bad after returing from the battlefield.

It's a friggin' magazine. They write about whatever they want. I don't know why you're nitpicking their choice of one terrorist over another.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 34):
See how that works on your next job interview.

True, but I've also worked with people who nailed their interview and then turned out to be bloody useless. But we're going off-topic...

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 34):
Again, and I have stated this multiple times: a picture on a magazine cover is not the issue here but rather the picture (one looking somewhat glamorous) on the magazine cover (that many pop cultlure celebrities long to be on) along with the timing of such (before his trial has even started) is the issue here.

You misunderstood my point. The point I'm making there is that that specific picture, and others from his Facebook/Instagram accounts, will be plastered all over the media the second his trial starts. When the trial starts in X months, is it all of a sudden not too soon for anyone then? There's a hint of hypocrisy there.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 34):
Trust me, if terrorist(s) did something similar in your own backyard; I think you would agree that covering such (a profile or history of the killer on a pop culture-themed magazine) only 3 months afterwards would be too soon and be in bad taste given the particular magazine's genre.

Depends what your definition of "backyard" is. I live closer to Boston than 85% of the United States. I was listening to the radio and searching online to make sure nobody I knew was hurt that day either. I still do not find the cover in bad taste.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 34):
Key word there is risk. A rather unwise one IMHO at this point and time and could very well backfire on them (RS).

Well, it got me to read one of their articles for the first time in about a year  



Flying refined.
User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
As I stated before, given the nature of what happened (a terrorist attack), there is a such thing as publishing something too soon. If RS, or anybody else for that matter, wants to do a story on Tsarnaev's history after his trial; then they can knock themselves out.

Not to sound like I'm absolving him (I'm not), but the entire purpose of the article would be defeated if it was published after the trial. Any sense of forming a holistic view of who Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is would be impossible post-trial, as a guilty verdict is most likely to be assured and everyone will probably think he's a monster anyway regardless of how he got there. We have a tendency to think that "Oh, this person's a criminal, let's execute him/lock him away for life" without thinking how he got there, and especially given how old he is. Heck, he's my age!

The opening note here is apt for emphasis:

Quote:
The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.

Writing about this post-trial does not allow us to give "a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens". In this case, whatever we know about him and what happened in Boston would have been formed in the courtroom, and not with what the press has dug up on him. In either case, the perception will vary widely, and it's still up to the good judgement of the reader to determine whether or not the story has validity.

As it is, Rolling Stone said that they console with the families, and they didn't mean to harm the feelings of the families even if some people felt offended by the cover. I think they're serious in their consolation with the families who lost loved ones or who have had loved ones suffer from the attacks. But I think part of the process of healing also includes trying to understand how he got there, and whether or not he is worthy of any sort of forgiveness from the families and the general public. That is something the justice system cannot ascertain.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2353 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
The state of the public education system in the U.S. is already a basketcase. If you've been following the GZ trial; the star witness for the prosecution was a 19-year-old who couldn't read cursive; something I learned back in the 2nd or 3rd grade (in public school might I add).

While not wanting to comment on the particular education of the individual in question, cursive writing education has been in a death spiral for over a decade. While a (modest) majority of schools still teach it as part of K-12, in most it's pretty much a token effort, and there's little or no requirement to ever produce assignments in that format. It's even been dropped from the Common Core State Standards. Kids simply aren't been taught the skill (anecdotally, only something like 10% of SAT essays, which are all handwritten, are turned in in cursive).

And most 19 year olds would be utterly befuddled if you handed them a slide rule. Times change.

Whether or not cursive is a skill worth spending hundreds of hours of classroom time on is debated*, although the "yes" side seems to have mostly given up, other than to issue periodic lamentations on the state of today's youth.


*IMO, not even remotely


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1311 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 32):
As I and a few other have mentioned before, the magazine in question here (Rolling Stone) is not a news magazine as much as it's a hip-oriented magazine that covers the music and movie culture with a sprinkling of news (& even politics) presented in a hipstep (and many critics would say 'leftist) point-of-view.

Over the years, has this magazine not run stories that have won journalism awards, employed top flight writers, broken significant stories?
Did they not run a story that led to a US general resigning not long ago?
So it's a 'hip' (whatever that means) magazine but one with a long history of doing significant journalism.

This just looks pathetic from abroad (and probably to many in the US too), to be frank, those wailing about a magazine cover - if not directly affected by the events in Boston - so most of them - need to grow a pair or just grow up.
They wouldn't have lasted long in other Western democracies who've experienced long terrorist campaigns, Germany in the 70's and 80's, the UK since the early 70's to name two obvious examples.
Guess what, terrorism did not begin in either 2001, or even 1995 (Tim McVeigh - was there any objections to magazine articles with HIM on the cover).


User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2449 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

I'm going to go buy an issue of Rolling Stone, something I've never done. I think this will be a home run sales-wise for them.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

So what if he's on the cover........ Its news, no ?

A complete overreaction by many here I'm sorry to say.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rolling Stone Article On The Tea Party posted Tue Sep 28 2010 15:00:46 by StuckInCA
Rolling Stone's Almost-Impossible Rock & Roll Quiz posted Tue Nov 6 2007 14:28:44 by Srbmod
Advice On Magazine Writing/ Becoming Author posted Thu Aug 9 2007 19:54:49 by Aviator737
$2,500 On Info For Missing Manhole Cover posted Thu Sep 1 2005 08:45:38 by BCAInfoSys
Time Magazine And The Outrage On P.26 posted Fri Apr 4 2003 11:05:04 by Clipperhawaii
What Are Some Of Your Opinions On Cover Bands? posted Tue Jun 4 2002 21:06:49 by Superfly
Wheels On Fire, Rolling Down The Road posted Sat Mar 9 2002 07:27:46 by Goodbye
Protecting Grown Ups On The Internet. posted Mon Jul 15 2013 04:06:49 by oly720man
Selling On EBay - Advice posted Mon Jul 8 2013 14:29:57 by virginblue4
Australia: Vote On Same-sex Marriage, Maybe? posted Fri Jun 28 2013 08:09:19 by AyostoLeon