Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Boston)   Rolling Stone magazine responds to outrage over new cover, says it "falls within the traditions of journalism." They apparently forgot the word "yellow" in there   (boston.cbslocal.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Rolling Stones, journalisms, traditions  
•       •       •

10988 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jul 2013 at 6:33 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



281 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-17 03:43:13 PM  
I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').
 
2013-07-17 03:44:38 PM  

dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').


It's a stupid f*cking complaint from people who need to be outraged and terrified all the goddamned time.
 
2013-07-17 03:49:47 PM  
How many other RS covers featured mass murders?
 
2013-07-17 04:36:15 PM  

netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?


I can think of the Charles Manson cover.
 
2013-07-17 04:49:57 PM  

netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?


Several.

But they were all before crybaby faux outrage became a professional sport in this country.
 
2013-07-17 04:51:28 PM  
The best part of today has been watching parts of Twitter get furious at the Rolling Stones.
 
2013-07-17 04:52:40 PM  

BunkoSquad: The best part of today has been watching parts of Twitter get furious at the Rolling Stones.


Well, to be fair, he was just a lonesome schoolboy, and he just came into town.
 
2013-07-17 04:55:04 PM  

netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?


was bush ever on the cover?
 
2013-07-17 04:55:55 PM  

FlashHarry: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

was bush ever on the cover?


Look, I hate Sixteen Stone as much as the next guy, but I'd hardly call them mass murderers.
 
2013-07-17 04:56:00 PM  

Aarontology: It's a stupid f*cking complaint from people who need to be outraged and terrified all the goddamned time.


Heh, you sound quite outraged. It is to lol.
 
2013-07-17 05:08:56 PM  
Next month:

imageshack.us
 
2013-07-17 05:14:27 PM  
Rolling Stone is trolling with their covers in an attempt to stay relevant.

Tina Brown and Newsweek magazine did this with some success shortly before they went out of print.
 
2013-07-17 05:15:29 PM  
#RollingStonesMazgazineStrong
 
2013-07-17 05:25:46 PM  

JerseyTim: FlashHarry: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

was bush ever on the cover?

Look, I hate Sixteen Stone as much as the next guy, but I'd hardly call them mass murderers.


they killed music for an entire generation!
 
2013-07-17 05:30:19 PM  
nontroversy
 
2013-07-17 05:41:14 PM  
I hate to be that guy, and I can't believe I am that guy, but something tells me that if that dude was black no one would care if he was on the cover
 
2013-07-17 06:35:30 PM  
you mentally deficient bro?
 
2013-07-17 06:36:06 PM  
The conservatards played right into RS's hands on this one.

Bravo!
 
2013-07-17 06:37:04 PM  
Cover of the only RS I ever bought

por-img.cimcontent.net

Hmmm, metallic boobies
 
2013-07-17 06:38:08 PM  

dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').


This. This POS does not deserve a farking glamour shot. This stupid cover pic plays into the retarded teenage girls who are insisting he's innocent because "he's cute."

It was the same story with that cocksucker from, was it Norway? Brieshniev or something like that? The guy that shot like 40 people last year. CNN insisted on running a professional glamor photo of him for weeks.
 
2013-07-17 06:39:01 PM  
why would you want to read about terrorism in a music magazine?

I don't understand why RS has a story about this. Just write about Bieber and GaGa and crap like that.
 
2013-07-17 06:39:04 PM  
sigdiamond2000:

But they were all before crybaby faux outrage became a professional sport in this country.

Outrage-of-the-day has really been helped along in the last few years by the explosive popularity of facebook, twitter, and youtube.  It makes spreading the outrage so much easier.
 
2013-07-17 06:40:11 PM  
The bomber is cute and thousands of wimmins get hot seeing his face; your objections are dismissed.
 
2013-07-17 06:40:33 PM  

FlashHarry: JerseyTim: FlashHarry: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

was bush ever on the cover?

Look, I hate Sixteen Stone as much as the next guy, but I'd hardly call them mass murderers.

they killed music for an entire generation!


I think you're confusing them with Nickelback.
 
2013-07-17 06:41:48 PM  
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-controversial-rolling-stone-co v ers-20130717,0,3316081.photogallery

As I said on #7.... get rid of the dudes and put in the redhead and Tara.
 
2013-07-17 06:42:27 PM  
Magazine huh? There's an industry that's on the rise.
 
2013-07-17 06:44:09 PM  

cman: I hate to be that guy, and I can't believe I am that guy, but something tells me that if that dude was black no one would care if he was on the cover


yea. I think that's sort of the point, that evil bastards don't always look like the scary people some people expect. I also think understanding what makes someone do something so heinous is worth looking into.
 
2013-07-17 06:44:16 PM  

Aarontology: dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').

It's a stupid f*cking complaint from people who need to be outraged and terrified all the goddamned time.


Agreed. Somebody I don't like is on the cover of a magazine. Whoopty-farkin-do
 
2013-07-17 06:44:16 PM  
PETERGRIFFITH_OHMYGODWHOTHEHELLCARES.JPG

*sigh*

/pancakes or waffles?
 
2013-07-17 06:44:33 PM  
I wonder how many magazine covers Bin Laden was on?
 
2013-07-17 06:44:49 PM  

dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').


i don't see as sexy but as showing him as what he in many ways is- a baby faced young man. Its the old "face of evil" thing- these guys aren't all a bearded mullah wearing a turban and an AK strapped across the chest.
 
2013-07-17 06:45:06 PM  
I love when people double down on their screw ups.
 
2013-07-17 06:47:31 PM  
Oh well.
Rolling Stone is still better journalism than the networks, not that it's a high bar.
 
2013-07-17 06:47:49 PM  
I was listening to the outrage all day on WEEI in Boston and haven't rtfa, I've given it enough thought to say "Don't Buy The Effn Periodical"

Like the cover or not there's a story to be told and people who wanna be told it.

Victims have their rights of course but victims have been compensated from all ends of the world.
 
2013-07-17 06:48:51 PM  
Here's a simple idea -- if you don't like it don't buy it.  Boom, problem solved.

I don't see anything wrong with the cover, but I suppose I don't have the metric shiat-tonne of sand in my underwear that others seem to have.
 
2013-07-17 06:50:00 PM  
On one hand, I can see things from the point of view of people who are outraged by this. Putting him on the cover only serves to give him attention at the expense of the victims of his crimes. It only serves to fuel the fire of obsession we, as a society, seem to have for terrorists, mass murderers and serial killers.

On the other hand, I realize that I just don't give a fark and that in the grand scheme of things this magazine cover is beyond irrelevant.
 
2013-07-17 06:50:22 PM  
Also, I'm gonna buy five copies for my mother
 
2013-07-17 06:50:59 PM  
You know who else was on a magazine cover?
 
2013-07-17 06:51:00 PM  
That Jonas Bomber should have thought about how boyishly attractive he was before bombing the marathon. The nerve of some people.
 
2013-07-17 06:51:01 PM  
I didn't realize RS's target audience was tumblr fan-girls.
 
2013-07-17 06:51:26 PM  

cman: I hate to be that guy, and I can't believe I am that guy, but something tells me that if that dude was black no one would care if he was on the cover


Or if he looked more like what people expect a Islamic terrorist to look like.

This is the "OMG! He looks like he could be Johnny from next door! How dare they show that!" type of outrage.
 
2013-07-17 06:51:32 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

I can think of the Charles Manson cover.


Now can you think of how many people Manson actually murdered?
 
2013-07-17 06:51:52 PM  

dletter: other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.


This is 'sexified'?

abcnews.go.com
 
2013-07-17 06:51:58 PM  
I can't believe they let the Boston Bomber come in and get professional wardrobe, hair, and make-up.
 
2013-07-17 06:52:10 PM  
Walking dead man problems.

Wenner is still a dick.
 
2013-07-17 06:53:19 PM  
I saw the cover. Please explain why I should be outraged
 
2013-07-17 06:53:41 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: cannotsuggestaname: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

I can think of the Charles Manson cover.

Now can you think of how many people Manson actually murdered?


You actually are going to go with this dumbass argument? But coming from you, what else should we expect.
 
2013-07-17 06:53:42 PM  
Am I the only one who thinks he looks a little like Kit Harrington?
 
2013-07-17 06:53:50 PM  
That Tsarnaev fellow should get an agent, he's got solid eyebrows and probably has a huge chunk of penis. With a little push from a talented svengali I could totally see him being Beiber's next girlfriend.
 
2013-07-17 06:55:22 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: This is 'sexified'?


At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.

I'm not particularly outraged by putting him on the cover, but it's hard to argue against the idea that the presentation makes him look cool young dude. If you didn't know any better, you'd think it was a profile of some new musician.
 
2013-07-17 06:55:40 PM  

master of unlocking: cman: I hate to be that guy, and I can't believe I am that guy, but something tells me that if that dude was black no one would care if he was on the cover

yea. I think that's sort of the point, that evil bastards don't always look like the scary people some people expect. I also think understanding what makes someone do something so heinous is worth looking into.


Especially since the freaking blurb indicates the article is about "just your average, good kid" who went horribly wrong.

"Wah! They should have been more like FOX News and make the guy look as bad as possible! Like THIS!"

images.teamsugar.com

Also, subby: next time, look up "yellow journalism" before you use the phrase; you obviously have no idea what it means.
 
2013-07-17 06:56:08 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I saw the cover. Please explain why I should be outraged


It makes it seem like if you're a badass terrorist with killer bone structure, you'll end up as a rock star on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Seriously that's pretty much what the guy on CNN just said.
 
2013-07-17 06:56:19 PM  
Can anyone tell me why we're all supposed to be outraged?
 
2013-07-17 06:56:28 PM  
Can't wait for his cookbook.
 
2013-07-17 06:57:06 PM  
No one is more about freedom of the press than I am, but isn't putting the face of an attempted mass-murderer on an influential magazine a bad choice?  There was a decent video for the media that came out a few years back from Britain that pretty much spelled out that after a mass shooting you do not show police cars with sirens on and you do not put the alleged killer's face all over the news and TV screens. Things of that nature. Their reasoning was images like that getting wide attention serve to inspire the next round of psychos.

Whether if that's true or not I have no idea.
 
2013-07-17 06:57:14 PM  
I don't get why people are outraged about this. Especially when the exact same photograph has already been used in other publications.
 
2013-07-17 06:57:21 PM  

shoegaze99: At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.


As noted, the blurb on the cover seems to indicate the article is sympathetic. Be kinda silly to say "he really was a good kid before..." and then only portray him as a monster.
 
2013-07-17 06:57:36 PM  
I especially enjoy how you can tell just from the cover that he's totally a victim and had no control over his actions. "failed by his family" and "fell into radical islam". Oh, oops, just fell right in. No control.
 
2013-07-17 06:58:18 PM  

ongbok: tenpoundsofcheese: cannotsuggestaname: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

I can think of the Charles Manson cover.

Now can you think of how many people Manson actually murdered?

You actually are going to go with this dumbass argument?

But coming from you, what else should we expect.


Only the truth.

Why so butthurt?  You okay?
 
2013-07-17 06:58:50 PM  

Godscrack: Next month:

imageshack.us

I for one welcome Rolling Stones your Slipper Slope. Sex sells with a smile!
cdn.ph.upi.comimg.timeinc.net
 
2013-07-17 06:59:08 PM  

uncleacid: Can't wait for his cookbook.


I dunno. All his recipes say, "Serves 626,000 (est.)".
 
2013-07-17 06:59:14 PM  
Gotta do something to beat Golf Digest in circulation.
 
2013-07-17 06:59:52 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: Also, I'm gonna buy five copies for his mother


This.
 
2013-07-17 07:00:30 PM  

Alphakronik: The conservatards played right into RS's hands on this one.

Bravo!


You have nothing better to do than make this a "conservative v liberal" thing or what?  I fail to see how this is a issue to do with either side. Care to enlighten us on how you know every outraged person is a conservative or are you just too dumb that your brain literally can't handle the fact that this has nothing to do with one side being outraged. I presume you say stuff like this just so you can sit there stroking your own cock while looking in a mirror thinking about how superior you are to everyone else.
 
2013-07-17 07:01:11 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: HaywoodJablonski: I saw the cover. Please explain why I should be outraged

It makes it seem like if you're a badass terrorist with killer bone structure, you'll end up as a rock star on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Seriously that's pretty much what the guy on CNN just said.


I'll buy that. I say all terrorists should get a cover on Redbook. That should put an end to it.
 
2013-07-17 07:01:46 PM  

SevenizGud: Walking dead man problems.

Wenner is still a dick.


Nah, he won't get the death penalty and nobody should want him to.

What instead they should say at his sentencing is the following. "Mr. jihad (SIC), you've been found guilty of Cap. Murd. 1 to the 1th degree, but however, due to the fact that you are so young...so supple and sultry, we condemn you to getting way, way, way, way over that."

And may allah have no mercy oer your scumbag pos soul.
 
2013-07-17 07:02:12 PM  

SilentStrider: Am I the only one who thinks he looks a little like Kit Harrington?


confused and stupid?

/ you know nothing etc
/ Jon Snow does have a dumbass look on his face most of the time
 
2013-07-17 07:02:42 PM  

untaken_name: I especially enjoy how you can tell just from the cover that he's totally a victim and had no control over his actions. "failed by his family" and "fell into radical islam". Oh, oops, just fell right in. No control.


God forbid we take a nuanced and objective look at how average people can be turned to radicalism.

I'm sure his first words were a cry for Chechan freedom.
 
2013-07-17 07:03:32 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: shoegaze99: At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.

As noted, the blurb on the cover seems to indicate the article is sympathetic. Be kinda silly to say "he really was a good kid before..." and then only portray him as a monster.


Well, was he considered a good kid prior to the Boston Marathon bombings? If so, I'm still not sure why there's outrage.
 
2013-07-17 07:03:47 PM  
You know, not everything in the world has to make you feel good. It's ok to have things out there you don't feel so great about.
 
2013-07-17 07:04:20 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I saw the cover. Please explain why I should be outraged




Because Boston has gone Stage 4 Guliani.
 
2013-07-17 07:04:23 PM  

Wadded Beef: No one is more about freedom of the press than I am, but isn't putting the face of an attempted mass-murderer on an influential magazine a bad choice?  There was a decent video for the media that came out a few years back from Britain that pretty much spelled out that after a mass shooting you do not show police cars with sirens on and you do not put the alleged killer's face all over the news and TV screens. Things of that nature. Their reasoning was images like that getting wide attention serve to inspire the next round of psychos.

Whether if that's true or not I have no idea.


But then you have arguments of censorship, etc. And, let's face it, in today's world, the guy's face is gonna get out, even if it's Twitter at first. Someone, somewhere, will have a photo or three, upload them, and then every online site will be showing them (even if those sites are crapfests like The Smoking Gun or TMZ). And people will flock to those sites and the more legitimate sources will lose out.

Because people (the populace in general) want the spectacle. They want to see the train wreck / plane crash / car accident.

So it's a toss-up: give 'em what they want and make money, or have some integrity and lose out.

Rock / hard place.
 
2013-07-17 07:04:30 PM  

Tommy Moo: This stupid cover pic plays into the retarded teenage girls who are insisting he's innocent because "he's cute."


I'm neither a teen girl nor retarded (well, possibly borderline), but I, too, insist that he is innocent. He hasn't been convicted, you see.
 
2013-07-17 07:05:02 PM  
That cover is just as bad as this:

img15.imageshack.us

Damn it Rolling Stones, we all expect better from you!
 
2013-07-17 07:05:15 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: Also, I'm gonna buy five copies for my mother


"Why?"

"In case she wants to read it more than once."
 
2013-07-17 07:05:29 PM  

FlashHarry: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

was bush ever on the cover?


Looks like it...
assets.rollingstone.com

And they have Obama covered too...
assets.rollingstone.com
 
2013-07-17 07:05:35 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: shoegaze99: At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.

As noted, the blurb on the cover seems to indicate the article is sympathetic. Be kinda silly to say "he really was a good kid before..." and then only portray him as a monster.


I don't see why anyone would have sympathy for that devil.
 
2013-07-17 07:05:38 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: shoegaze99: At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.

As noted, the blurb on the cover seems to indicate the article is sympathetic. Be kinda silly to say "he really was a good kid before..." and then only portray him as a monster.


I don't think it's being "sympathetic" to show how a formerly good kid turned into a murdering terrorist.Before this, he wasn't all that different than most kids his age. I mean, that's the source of everyone's outrage: that he looked like a relatively normal kid. But then something changed and he went full jihadi.

People always want to think that terrorists are, and always have been evil, and look like one of those guys from the THIS IS AN OUTRAGE meme, when pretty much anyone, given the proper motivation can turn into a monster. It wouldn't be any different than doing a story about how Tim McVeigh, went from being a patriotic soldier into one of the worst monsters in American history and showing a picture of him from when he was serving
 
2013-07-17 07:06:01 PM  

SilentStrider: Am I the only one who thinks he looks a little like Kit Harrington?


I don't know. I do know that if he'd had Ygritte to occupy his attention he wouldn't have had the time or the energy for any Jihad shenanigans.
 
2013-07-17 07:06:10 PM  

untaken_name: I especially enjoy how you can tell just from the cover that he's totally a victim and had no control over his actions. "failed by his family" and "fell into radical islam". Oh, oops, just fell right in. No control.


That is why you need to hold on to the handrails at all times.

It is a pathetic cover and the text only makes it worse.

How about "Why did this farkward decide to kill and injure so many people?"

Next up, some politician commenting that the child could have been his son.
 
2013-07-17 07:06:23 PM  

cowgirl toffee: That cover is just as bad as this:

Damn it Rolling Stones, we all expect better from you!


That lesbian has no boobs.
 
2013-07-17 07:07:31 PM  
Here's the problem as I see it . . .


i1139.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-17 07:07:43 PM  

fusillade762: I don't see why anyone would have sympathy for that devil.


Ooo, the subtle triple play. Nice.
 
2013-07-17 07:08:36 PM  

Bontesla: cowgirl toffee: ...

That lesbian has no boobs.


I know. That girl in Hanson looks a lot prettier.
 
2013-07-17 07:08:46 PM  
I don't get the outrage either.  He's not the first bad guy on the cover of a magazine, and won't be the last.

I did find it interesting that Fox News was bloviating in horror that a national publication would use this picture to help tell their story.  Of course to tell their story, Fox News used the same image.

Somehow it's terrible for the Rolling Stone to use the picture, but fair and balanced when Fox does.
 
2013-07-17 07:10:16 PM  
"coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day"

Two idiots who made some homemade bombs and blew shiat up for no real reason whatsoever (except for the rampant stupidity in their own heads) is in no way one of the "most important political and cultural issues of our day".

Nice attempt at trolling for attention, Rolling Stone.  Enjoy your ride down to online-only and then oblivion.
 
2013-07-17 07:10:39 PM  

mouschi: Alphakronik: The conservatards played right into RS's hands on this one.

Bravo!

You have nothing better to do than make this a "conservative v liberal" thing or what?  I fail to see how this is a issue to do with either side. Care to enlighten us on how you know every outraged person is a conservative or are you just too dumb that your brain literally can't handle the fact that this has nothing to do with one side being outraged. I presume you say stuff like this just so you can sit there stroking your own cock while looking in a mirror thinking about how superior you are to everyone else.


But it is.  I've been listening to both NPR and Fox radio for the past week, and only one of them won't let this drop, and it's not the pinko-libtards.

Turn on the news, and it's the same thing.  Until you've gone ahead and dug up some sort of counter argument that has more basis in reality than "y u wanna make this into lib v conservative thing", keep reading.  Eventually you might catch on.   Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Larson, ect all have been going off about it for days now.

Either have the party stfu, or don't get pissed when we laugh at you.
 
2013-07-17 07:11:11 PM  

Test Tickles: Here's the problem as I see it . . .


I've read his tweets. Trust me - he ain't no Dylan.

/lookalikes be dammed
 
2013-07-17 07:13:15 PM  

kevinfra: I don't get the outrage either.  He's not the first bad guy on the cover of a magazine, and won't be the last.

I did find it interesting that Fox News was bloviating in horror that a national publication would use this picture to help tell their story.  Of course to tell their story, Fox News used the same image.

Somehow it's terrible for the Rolling Stone to use the picture, but fair and balanced when Fox does.


People are just upset that an image on a magazine is forcing their reactionary and rigid brains to humanize a human being who is also a terrorist. They can't hold two separate and seemingly (but ultimately not) contradictory thoughts at the same time because it makes them uncomfortable. It's easier if the guy is just a bloodthirsty sociopath, and blows apart their internal philosophy of us good, them bad.
 
2013-07-17 07:13:50 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: "coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day"

Two idiots who made some homemade bombs and blew shiat up for no real reason whatsoever (except for the rampant stupidity in their own heads) is in no way one of the "most important political and cultural issues of our day".

Nice attempt at trolling for attention, Rolling Stone.  Enjoy your ride down to online-only and then oblivion.


For a country that's involved in a war on terror, I'd think a piece examining what leads someone to become a terrorist is clearly one of the most important political issues of the day.
 
2013-07-17 07:14:23 PM  
You know who  should've been on the covers of the biggest mags was that poor, misunderstood Adam Lanza boy.

After his poor mom divorced they were never the same, poor things.
 
2013-07-17 07:14:26 PM  
They are just playing to their audience.
The left will eat this up...."oh, poor innocent child, failed by his parents and fell into radical islam."
The right will cancel their non-existing subscriptions.
 
2013-07-17 07:15:32 PM  
Don't buy the fookin mag.

Problem Solved
 
2013-07-17 07:16:27 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: kevinfra: I don't get the outrage either.  He's not the first bad guy on the cover of a magazine, and won't be the last.

I did find it interesting that Fox News was bloviating in horror that a national publication would use this picture to help tell their story.  Of course to tell their story, Fox News used the same image.

Somehow it's terrible for the Rolling Stone to use the picture, but fair and balanced when Fox does.

People are just upset that an image on a magazine is forcing their reactionary and rigid brains to humanize a human being who is also a terrorist. They can't hold two separate and seemingly (but ultimately not) contradictory thoughts at the same time because it makes them uncomfortable. It's easier if the guy is just a bloodthirsty sociopath, and blows apart their internal philosophy of us good, them bad.


OOOOR  they think making celebrities out of people who do this help in pushing the next psycho who wants his day to do it, but your "people are sooooo stupid" typed with long fancy words works too.
 
2013-07-17 07:17:17 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: kevinfra: I don't get the outrage either.  He's not the first bad guy on the cover of a magazine, and won't be the last.

I did find it interesting that Fox News was bloviating in horror that a national publication would use this picture to help tell their story.  Of course to tell their story, Fox News used the same image.

Somehow it's terrible for the Rolling Stone to use the picture, but fair and balanced when Fox does.

People are just upset that an image on a magazine is forcing their reactionary and rigid brains to humanize a human being who is also a terrorist. They can't hold two separate and seemingly (but ultimately not) contradictory thoughts at the same time because it makes them uncomfortable. It's easier if the guy is just a bloodthirsty sociopath, and blows apart their internal philosophy of us good, them bad.


So, those outraged may have trouble holding complex thought.

Twitter supports your hypothesis.
 
2013-07-17 07:17:29 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: They are just playing to their audience.
The left will eat this up...."oh, poor innocent child, failed by his parents and fell into radical islam."
The right will cancel their non-existing subscriptions.


The audience for Rolling Stone is Baby Boomers who think music stopped being groundbreaking around 1979. I'm not sure how the old guy down at the bar with his hair in a ponytail votes.
 
2013-07-17 07:18:32 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: "coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day"

Two idiots who made some homemade bombs and blew shiat up for no real reason whatsoever (except for the rampant stupidity in their own heads) is in no way one of the "most important political and cultural issues of our day".


But two idiots who made some homemade bombs and blew shiat up for possibly politically reasons and held a city hostage to fear and captivated a nation with the spectacle is.

Especially when their is an ongoing FBI investigation into the death (while in questioning) of a "Tsarnaev associate".

But hey. Opinion, man.
 
2013-07-17 07:18:33 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: "coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day"

Two idiots who made some homemade bombs and blew shiat up for no real reason whatsoever (except for the rampant stupidity in their own heads) is in no way one of the "most important political and cultural issues of our day".

Nice attempt at trolling for attention, Rolling Stone.  Enjoy your ride down to online-only and then oblivion.


Actually how a person who was normal by accounts of people who knew him could turn into a radicalized mass murderer is definitely a pretty important cultural issues and maybe political issue. If you don't think so I would like to know what you think is an important cultural or political issue.
 
2013-07-17 07:18:57 PM  
WTF is with people.

Nobody cares about your stupid outrage. If a RS cover affects you so much, you are pathetic and need a hobby or something.

It's like people are just always looking around for the latest outrage, the latest "affront".

Puritans....
 
2013-07-17 07:19:04 PM  

mouschi: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: kevinfra: I don't get the outrage either.  He's not the first bad guy on the cover of a magazine, and won't be the last.

I did find it interesting that Fox News was bloviating in horror that a national publication would use this picture to help tell their story.  Of course to tell their story, Fox News used the same image.

Somehow it's terrible for the Rolling Stone to use the picture, but fair and balanced when Fox does.

People are just upset that an image on a magazine is forcing their reactionary and rigid brains to humanize a human being who is also a terrorist. They can't hold two separate and seemingly (but ultimately not) contradictory thoughts at the same time because it makes them uncomfortable. It's easier if the guy is just a bloodthirsty sociopath, and blows apart their internal philosophy of us good, them bad.

OOOOR  they think making celebrities out of people who do this help in pushing the next psycho who wants his day to do it, but your "people are sooooo stupid" typed with long fancy words works too.


I'm pretty sure that Rolling Stones isn't going to make this guy any more famous than he already is. How the hell could they make a celebrity out of him?
 
2013-07-17 07:19:32 PM  
The best part of this for me is all the outraged Dzhokhar Truthers on twitter, who are young women who think he's too dreamy to be guilty.
 
2013-07-17 07:19:37 PM  
 
2013-07-17 07:19:55 PM  

mouschi: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: kevinfra: I don't get the outrage either.  He's not the first bad guy on the cover of a magazine, and won't be the last.

I did find it interesting that Fox News was bloviating in horror that a national publication would use this picture to help tell their story.  Of course to tell their story, Fox News used the same image.

Somehow it's terrible for the Rolling Stone to use the picture, but fair and balanced when Fox does.

People are just upset that an image on a magazine is forcing their reactionary and rigid brains to humanize a human being who is also a terrorist. They can't hold two separate and seemingly (but ultimately not) contradictory thoughts at the same time because it makes them uncomfortable. It's easier if the guy is just a bloodthirsty sociopath, and blows apart their internal philosophy of us good, them bad.

OOOOR  they think making celebrities out of people who do this help in pushing the next psycho who wants his day to do it, but your "people are sooooo stupid" typed with long fancy words works too.


Is your problem that he's a photogenic terrorist? Nobody seemed to think magazines were celebrating Bin Laden when his bearded mug was everywhere.
 
2013-07-17 07:20:20 PM  
Publications should only be allowed to run photos of accused criminals after drawing little mustaches and missing teeth on them with black markers. Also they should have devil horns and digital flames added in for television appearances.
 
2013-07-17 07:20:53 PM  
Here, let's try an image that accurately reflects the importance of this cover to current political events.
 
2013-07-17 07:21:37 PM  
Wups, let's try that again.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-17 07:23:21 PM  
I hear he's gonna buy five copies for his mother.
 
2013-07-17 07:24:08 PM  

Aarontology: dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').

It's a stupid f*cking complaint from people who need to be outraged and terrified all the goddamned time.


Trayvon Martin anyone?
 
2013-07-17 07:24:10 PM  
That reminds me I need to renew my subscription to Playboy too.

/Sarcasm
 
2013-07-17 07:25:12 PM  
i'd hit it


/with my fist
//perverts
 
2013-07-17 07:25:23 PM  
And now you're all talking about Rolling Stone which is something you haven't done for 20 years.

Marks.
 
2013-07-17 07:29:45 PM  
It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.
 
2013-07-17 07:30:25 PM  

Cagey B: Publications should only be allowed to run photos of accused criminals after drawing little mustaches and missing teeth on them with black markers. Also they should have devil horns and digital flames added in for television appearances.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-17 07:30:51 PM  

Rapmaster2000: And now you're all talking about Rolling Stone which is something you haven't done for 20 years.

Marks.


Mission Accomplished by them. Grade A journo-trolling.
 
2013-07-17 07:31:28 PM  
www.nacion.com2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-17 07:33:30 PM  
They want to lure new, young readers who supposedly find him a sexy outlaw.

And this is again why we can't have nice things.
 
2013-07-17 07:35:39 PM  

Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.


You know he's a suspect, right? Not yet convicted? Should we portray all suspects as monsters, just because it makes you feel better?
 
2013-07-17 07:36:04 PM  
Trolling Stone
 
2013-07-17 07:37:05 PM  
How long until some PBR drinking hipster douchebag has this pic on Che Guevara style t-shirt?
 
2013-07-17 07:37:11 PM  
I suspect Jann Wenner has a crush on that terrorist f*ck.
 
2013-07-17 07:39:10 PM  

mouschi: Alphakronik: The conservatards played right into RS's hands on this one.

Bravo!

You have nothing better to do than make this a "conservative v liberal" thing or what?  I fail to see how this is a issue to do with either side. Care to enlighten us on how you know every outraged person is a conservative or are you just too dumb that your brain literally can't handle the fact that this has nothing to do with one side being outraged. I presume you say stuff like this just so you can sit there stroking your own cock while looking in a mirror thinking about how superior you are to everyone else.


You should read the comments in that article
 
2013-07-17 07:39:24 PM  

Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.


Haha!  Some fan.  FAVORITE READ, huh?  And you'll throw it away for this!?

What a delicate, precious little flower you are.  Can I call you Daisy?

/"Lawds, sir, let me gather up my petticoats and leave, for you have offended my delicate sensibilities "
 
2013-07-17 07:39:42 PM  
I am sure Willie Nelson's bus is a much better place to hang out than a land bound boat with snipers circling overhead in choppers.

We may not know why he did it, but he was doin' it wrong.
 
2013-07-17 07:39:55 PM  

cman: I hate to be that guy, and I can't believe I am that guy, but something tells me that if that dude was black no one would care if he was on the cover


None of us are surprised that you are a racist.

Really.

/Pity the poor, poor oppressed white man.
 
2013-07-17 07:40:13 PM  
Nothing new.

img5.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-17 07:41:31 PM  
Same pic the NYT had on its front page, FYI
 
2013-07-17 07:42:12 PM  
I really think this comes down to the fact that people are really uncomfortable with how Tsarnaev is an attractive guy. You put Zimmerman in the same pose, with the same clothes, the same lighting, etc., and no one would claim it was "glorifying" him.  I mean, it says "The Bomber" right on him--that's not an honorrific. The kid looks like he could have been a member of The Strokes or something--and that really bothers people.

Which is why it's now a really interesting cover.
 
2013-07-17 07:42:20 PM  
Time magazine put Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot on its covers. Oh and CVS, which banned Rolling Stone's "offensive" cover, is charging 450 percent above retail prices for prescription drugs. How's that working for you, America?
 
2013-07-17 07:42:50 PM  

mikebdoss: Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.

You know he's a suspect, right? Not yet convicted? Should we portray all suspects as monsters, just because it makes you feel better?


The term monster shouldn't even be up for debate since its' on the cover. We know what he is, there is no disagreement there.

So what is your real issue with my opinion? What would make me feel better is not relevant since I never called for a boycott of RS, silly me I just choose personally to object to glorifying suspected terrorists.
 
2013-07-17 07:46:05 PM  
They got what they wanted, we are talking about them.  RS is run by a bunch of old farts that don't think anything good was made after the 70s.  Tomorrow they can go back to being irrelevant.
 
2013-07-17 07:46:07 PM  
This will fly better in uppity hip places than it will in Boston or flyover country. Just sayin.
 
2013-07-17 07:47:11 PM  

mikebdoss: Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.

You know he's a suspect, right? Not yet convicted? Should we portray all suspects as monsters, just because it makes you feel better?


That's the court's burden, not ours.  We don't have to pretend we don't know anything when we actually do.
 
2013-07-17 07:49:41 PM  

Brick-House: Don't buy the fookin mag.

Problem Solved


Well totally acurate but:

rambly-ramblings.2308065.n4.nabble.com
 
2013-07-17 07:49:42 PM  
I just read that Walgreen's has said they are not going to carry this issue of Rolling Stone.

But, you can just go across the street and get it at CVS.
 
2013-07-17 07:50:49 PM  

dletter: I just read that Walgreen's has said they are not going to carry this issue of Rolling Stone.

But, you can just go across the street and get it at CVS.


And now my joke bombs, just read that CVS is dropping it as well.
 
2013-07-17 07:50:54 PM  

Fentanyl Bomb: I am sure Willie Nelson's bus is a much better place to hang out than a land bound boat with snipers circling overhead in choppers.

We may not know why he did it, but he was doin' it wrong.


On Willie's bus your only problem is getting a chuff, he's a fargin bogart.
 
2013-07-17 07:51:46 PM  

jakomo002: Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.

Haha!  Some fan.  FAVORITE READ, huh?  And you'll throw it away for this!?

What a delicate, precious little flower you are.  Can I call you Daisy?

/"Lawds, sir, let me gather up my petticoats and leave, for you have offended my delicate sensibilities "


I suppose I could choose not to exercise discrimination of taste but why? The cover does not claim to have any new facts exonerating this asshole, why should I be ok with an obvious attempt to make him a sympathetic figure? Should I stick around for next issue's cover story featuring Jerry Sandusky: misunderstood lover of kids?
 
2013-07-17 07:52:27 PM  

BravadoGT: mikebdoss: Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.

You know he's a suspect, right? Not yet convicted? Should we portray all suspects as monsters, just because it makes you feel better?

That's the court's burden, not ours.  We don't have to pretend we don't know anything when we actually do.


A public hanging in Fenways center field is all I want. I'd pay money to pull the lever.
 
2013-07-17 07:53:09 PM  
The problem I have is that his family didn't fail him. There was one uncle who spoke out against the little jackass. Hell, his brother was his wingman.
 
2013-07-17 07:53:19 PM  

dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').


If they locally retouched it to "sexify" it, then yes. If it is straight out of the camera (or at least, a scan of a family photo or whatever) with no more than global adjustments then this is people biatching just for the sake of it.

I'm guessing it's the latter.
 
2013-07-17 07:54:27 PM  
This kid's still a thing?

Very timely, RS.
 
2013-07-17 07:55:05 PM  

mikaloyd: This will fly better in uppity hip places than it will in Boston or flyover country. Just sayin.


I'm sure there is a need for bird cage liners even in fly over states.
 
2013-07-17 07:55:26 PM  
He'll look better with a full lethal dose in him. Run that pic, RS. I'd buy that edition.
 
2013-07-17 07:56:01 PM  
Anyone outraged over DHS, NSA, TSA, Patriot Act?
Nah.
No one cares about Dick Farking Cheney making enough money to Johnstown Flood Scrooge McDuck's vault into panning gold downstream off of 2 illegal wars, then whacking off to the dead returning.
A virtual Death Star was built on 9/11 and no one gets rich but lawyers and politicians.
Time put Bin Laden on the cover.
Sold copies.
It's what print media does to survive.
Yellow? Nah.
The only yellow I see is the stripes on the backs of people flying commercial airlines.
Voting for more war machines.
And counting the days since they had Liberty.
 
2013-07-17 07:56:14 PM  
This is in the same league as being outraged over the Batman movie having Bane in it because Bane was a villain and people might associate his evil ways with Bain Capital during the election.
 
2013-07-17 07:58:36 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: The problem I have is that his family didn't fail him. There was one uncle who spoke out against the little jackass. Hell, his brother was his wingman.


I do have to say, there are a lot of people (my wife included) who, while horrified by the fact that he did this, felt like he was probably heavily influenced by his older brother to go down this path.   Reading some of the article online, I'm inclined to agree.   While he is ultimately responsible for his own actions, I do wonder if he personally would have done it without his brothers influence.
 
2013-07-17 07:59:17 PM  

jakomo002: Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.

Haha!  Some fan.  FAVORITE READ, huh?  And you'll throw it away for this!?

What a delicate, precious little flower you are.  Can I call you Daisy?

/"Lawds, sir, let me gather up my petticoats and leave, for you have offended my delicate sensibilities "


That was pretty spectacular.
 
2013-07-17 08:00:10 PM  

THX 1138: This is in the same league as being outraged over the Batman movie having Bane in it because Bane was a villain and people might associate his evil ways with Bain Capital during the election.


That is the dumbest thing I have seen today, congratulations!

Not everything is partisan.
 
2013-07-17 08:06:14 PM  

Bontesla: jakomo002: Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.

Haha!  Some fan.  FAVORITE READ, huh?  And you'll throw it away for this!?

What a delicate, precious little flower you are.  Can I call you Daisy?

/"Lawds, sir, let me gather up my petticoats and leave, for you have offended my delicate sensibilities "

That was pretty spectacular.


Yes because objecting to softening the narrative concerning a terrorist qualifies me as a fragile dandy of a man. Perhaps later I can have a case of the vapors after I mow the lawn. Maybe I can sit crosslegged on the couch and daintly dab a handkerchief at my brow after I hang some drywall.
 
2013-07-17 08:06:43 PM  
Meanwhile, in Brazil, Rolling Stone continues its traditional of 'yellow' journalism.

i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-17 08:07:26 PM  
People are only outraged because the media is telling them to be outraged, but you smart people already knew that.
 
2013-07-17 08:08:20 PM  
First thing I thought of:

www.pinkfloydz.com
 
2013-07-17 08:10:50 PM  

cowgirl toffee: Nothing new.

[img5.imageshack.us image 419x499]


And, in a like vein, the man hadn't convicted of anything, merely accused.

/still hasn't, iirc
 
2013-07-17 08:13:21 PM  

Owangotang: Bontesla: jakomo002: Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.

Haha!  Some fan.  FAVORITE READ, huh?  And you'll throw it away for this!?

What a delicate, precious little flower you are.  Can I call you Daisy?

/"Lawds, sir, let me gather up my petticoats and leave, for you have offended my delicate sensibilities "

That was pretty spectacular.

Yes because objecting to softening the narrative concerning a terrorist qualifies me as a fragile dandy of a man. Perhaps later I can have a case of the vapors after I mow the lawn. Maybe I can sit crosslegged on the couch and daintly dab a handkerchief at my brow after I hang some drywall.


You've invested way too much emotion in that. I don't have the slightest idea of what you two are going on about and, frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn.

I rather enjoyed the comment. It was unexpected.
 
2013-07-17 08:14:23 PM  

NorthVentricle: First thing I thought of:


Wow, Michael Jackson looks angry.
 
2013-07-17 08:14:56 PM  

Tommy Moo: This. This POS does not deserve a farking glamour shot.


I agree in principle. The other side of this is that exposes our bias toward 'attractive' people.

However his face is rendered, I am still full of the deepest contempt for him.
 
2013-07-17 08:16:07 PM  
Huh.

Rolling Stone is still a magazine. That's nice for their reader.
 
2013-07-17 08:17:31 PM  

NorthVentricle: First thing I thought of:

[www.pinkfloydz.com image 300x450]


At least Syd could have pleaded insanity.....
 
2013-07-17 08:18:44 PM  

Bontesla: Owangotang: Bontesla: jakomo002: Owangotang: It's too sympathetic for my liking. The blurb on the cover coupled with that photo makes it seem like RS is pushing the narrative that its' everyone else's fault, not his.

fark that. He was not 9. He chose to become a monster.

Rolling Stone used to be one of my favorite reads while on the commode, but now I would not even use it to wipe my ass.

Haha!  Some fan.  FAVORITE READ, huh?  And you'll throw it away for this!?

What a delicate, precious little flower you are.  Can I call you Daisy?

/"Lawds, sir, let me gather up my petticoats and leave, for you have offended my delicate sensibilities "

That was pretty spectacular.

Yes because objecting to softening the narrative concerning a terrorist qualifies me as a fragile dandy of a man. Perhaps later I can have a case of the vapors after I mow the lawn. Maybe I can sit crosslegged on the couch and daintly dab a handkerchief at my brow after I hang some drywall.

You've invested way too much emotion in that. I don't have the slightest idea of what you two are going on about and, frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn.

I rather enjoyed the comment. It was unexpected.


We are in agreement, you definitely do not have the slightest idea about what is going on.
 
2013-07-17 08:20:28 PM  

Bontesla: ArcadianRefugee: shoegaze99: At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.

As noted, the blurb on the cover seems to indicate the article is sympathetic. Be kinda silly to say "he really was a good kid before..." and then only portray him as a monster.

Well, was he considered a good kid prior to the Boston Marathon bombings? If so, I'm still not sure why there's outrage.


Because outrage is fashionable, profitable, and isn't fattening.
 
2013-07-17 08:22:53 PM  

JonnyG: People are only outraged because the media is telling them to be outraged, but you smart people already knew that.


Or, now follow me here... maybe people are getting fed up with fictitious writing done in the classic douchebag "blame society" style while it is posing as journalism.
 
2013-07-17 08:23:23 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: cowgirl toffee: Nothing new.

[img5.imageshack.us image 419x499]

And, in a like vein, the man hadn't convicted of anything, merely accused.

/still hasn't, iirc


Yep... just like the new cover.
 
2013-07-17 08:23:47 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
folks kinda lost the point of this movie didn't they?
 
2013-07-17 08:24:13 PM  
I was always taught to judge a book by its cover. It's the American Way.
 
2013-07-17 08:24:35 PM  
People are still giving a crap about print media?
 
2013-07-17 08:25:29 PM  
assets.rollingstone.com
Vehicular manslaughter

assets.rollingstone.com
Rape and attempted murder

www.mediabistro.com
Serial murder

We'll get over it.
 
2013-07-17 08:26:13 PM  

sigdiamond2000: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

Several.

But they were all before crybaby faux outrage became a professional sport in this country.


Ya get that with liberals!
 
2013-07-17 08:26:23 PM  
Here's how I imagine it going down at Fox News:

Producer 1: Guys, guys, guys.  What if instead of caring about this non-issue we just ignored it and focused on real issues?
Producer 2: What?  You mean pass up a perfectly good opportunity to be outraged?
Both producers in unison: Bwahahahaha!
 
2013-07-17 08:27:41 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-17 08:29:03 PM  
Meh.  Those of you pissed about the cover should actually be happy.

The kid - despite his newfound infamy and the legions of babes wanting him to 'blow up their bellies with babies' (true twitter) will never breathe free air again until the day the authorities inject him and watch him twitch and die... or twitter and die.  lol

So smile and don't be so butthurt.  He'll never get to actually enjoy any of this 'fame.'
 
2013-07-17 08:29:35 PM  

Darth Macho: [assets.rollingstone.com image 413x500]
Vehicular manslaughter

[assets.rollingstone.com image 413x500]
Rape and attempted murder

[www.mediabistro.com image 358x482]
Serial murder

We'll get over it.


No, cuz my conservative overlords are demanding that I am upset about this!  Because Terrorism!  Let's ignore how much my favorite network of choice did it's own brand of sensationalism about that tradegy.
 
2013-07-17 08:31:41 PM  

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: You know who else was on a magazine cover?


i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-17 08:31:45 PM  
What is it about people that they get freaked out every time something is labeled terrorism? Good god, Americans need to get a grip.
 
2013-07-17 08:32:53 PM  
THX 1138: These are the This is in the same people league as being outraged over the Batman movie having Bane in it because Bane was a villain and people might associate his evil ways with Bain Capital during the election.

FTFY
 
2013-07-17 08:34:34 PM  
Why not use his mug shot as the cover photo? That would still fit the good kid gone bad narrative. But obviously not sensational enough. Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.
 
2013-07-17 08:36:32 PM  

ca beach runner: Why not use his mug shot as the cover photo? That would still fit the good kid gone bad narrative. But obviously not sensational enough. Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.


IDK, haven't read the article but the gist seems to be "look at this normal seeming kid, WTF happened?".
 
2013-07-17 08:36:39 PM  

ca beach runner: Why not use his mug shot as the cover photo? That would still fit the good kid gone bad narrative. But obviously not sensational enough. Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.


Because he had a bullet hole in his face or neck and I'm sure his head was pumpkined.

Have they even released his mugshot?
 
2013-07-17 08:39:31 PM  
So every other form of media can capitalize on this tragedy  except the Rolling Stone?  Fake outrage is fake.
 
2013-07-17 08:39:43 PM  

ongbok: ca beach runner: Why not use his mug shot as the cover photo? That would still fit the good kid gone bad narrative. But obviously not sensational enough. Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.

Because he had a bullet hole in his face or neck and I'm sure his head was pumpkined.

Have they even released his mugshot?


Yes, I did GIS of it, looks very normal. Not sexy enough though.
 
2013-07-17 08:40:17 PM  
ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2013-07-17 08:40:31 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: objective


HAhhAhhaHAhhAHahahaHahahAH. You're funny.
 
2013-07-17 08:42:11 PM  
Its not Rolling Stone's fault that he's good looking... Should they have attempted to find a less flattering picture, since he's the bad guy?
 
2013-07-17 08:44:38 PM  
www.unrealfacts.com
 
2013-07-17 08:46:05 PM  

jso2897: Bontesla: ArcadianRefugee: shoegaze99: At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.

As noted, the blurb on the cover seems to indicate the article is sympathetic. Be kinda silly to say "he really was a good kid before..." and then only portray him as a monster.

Well, was he considered a good kid prior to the Boston Marathon bombings? If so, I'm still not sure why there's outrage.

Because outrage is fashionable, profitable, and isn't fattening.


If I only understood derp enough to cash in on manufactured outrage - I'd have a fabulous indoor swimming pool.
 
2013-07-17 08:46:30 PM  

Cerebral Knievel: folks kinda lost the point of this movie didn't they?


...spittin and frothin at the mouth...
 
2013-07-17 08:47:37 PM  

shoegaze99: I'm not particularly outraged by putting him on the cover, but it's hard to argue against the idea that the presentation makes him look cool young dude. If you didn't know any better, you'd think it was a profile of some new musician.


What did you expect them to do, draw a pointy goatee and some menacing Satan eyebrows on him?
 
2013-07-17 08:51:46 PM  

Bontesla: jso2897: Bontesla: ArcadianRefugee: shoegaze99: At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.

As noted, the blurb on the cover seems to indicate the article is sympathetic. Be kinda silly to say "he really was a good kid before..." and then only portray him as a monster.

Well, was he considered a good kid prior to the Boston Marathon bombings? If so, I'm still not sure why there's outrage.

Because outrage is fashionable, profitable, and isn't fattening.

If I only understood derp enough to cash in on manufactured outrage - I'd have a fabulous indoor swimming pool.


Talk to Drew, he's got it down to a science.
 
2013-07-17 08:52:03 PM  

sharpie_69: Here's a simple idea -- if you don't like it don't buy it.  Boom, problem solved.

I don't see anything wrong with the cover, but I suppose I don't have the metric shiat-tonne of sand in my underwear that others seem to have.


Probably not, but if you ever get body parts blown off while you were minding your own business at some nondescript sporting event, because someone thinks they'll make the cover of Rolling Stone (or insert irrelevant media outlet here) in a glamor shot, you may change your mind...
 
2013-07-17 08:56:13 PM  

ca beach runner: Why not use his mug shot as the cover photo? That would still fit the good kid gone bad narrative. But obviously not sensational enough. Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.


Why?

It's an image. Not an argument for terrorism, not a screed justifying anti-Americanism or murder. An image is a visual depiction that engages the viewer on emotional levels. Any intellectual point that comes out of an image is entirely the creation of the viewer's brain.

upload.wikimedia.org

Stripped of context, there are many ways to interpret an image. If you immediately jump to charging blasphemy you might want to take a deeper look at your own subconscious instead of attacking external stimuli.

I'm not afraid of falling for a mass murderer because of a pretty photo.
 
2013-07-17 08:58:38 PM  
Don't get why people are upset about this. It's not like they are glorifying what he did!

I for one am actually interested in how a relatively normal person turns into a farking Allah Akbar nutjob. Maybe there is some truth there about people or about society - maybe there is nothing. But I'm curious!

I would have thought most people would be curious about this...
 
2013-07-17 09:00:17 PM  
Fake outrage.....
 
2013-07-17 09:07:39 PM  

TwistedFark: Don't get why people are upset about this. It's not like they are glorifying what he did!

I for one am actually interested in how a relatively normal person turns into a farking Allah Akbar nutjob. Maybe there is some truth there about people or about society - maybe there is nothing. But I'm curious!

I would have thought most people would be curious about this...


The outrage is because the picture they used of him makes him look like any other normal white suburban late teens early 20's male. They didn't use a picture of him dressed in terrorist garb looking sinister.

More than likely the only pictures of him, besides the ones of him all bloody and being taken away, are probably all of him looking like a typical white suburban teen.
 
2013-07-17 09:08:47 PM  
Should put on a photo of him crying like a biatch after the cops shot him up and he surrendered. Not afraid to kill the innocent, but too chickenshiat to die himself.
 
2013-07-17 09:09:35 PM  
bostonherald.com
 
2013-07-17 09:10:26 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-17 09:12:03 PM  
www.poynter.org
 
2013-07-17 09:12:48 PM  
Maybe Rolling Stone could have been more reasonable and photoshopped him holding an ak47 in the air, while wearing a suicide vest, reading the Koran and wearing one of those long beards.

/I think that was what the people complaining wanted.
 
2013-07-17 09:16:09 PM  
reminds me of this guy

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-17 09:17:24 PM  

Aarontology: dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').

It's a stupid f*cking complaint from people who need to be outraged and terrified all the goddamned time.


Bullshiat. They made a terrorist and a murder look like he was posing for the cover of Tiger Beat.
 
2013-07-17 09:17:34 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Maybe Rolling Stone could have been more reasonable and photoshopped him holding an ak47 in the air, while wearing a suicide vest, reading the Koran and wearing one of those long beards.

/I think that was what the people complaining wanted.


Yep. They defiantly didn't want a picture of somebody that looked like he could be the kid down the street, which he did look like.
 
2013-07-17 09:19:18 PM  
Back in the 90's, Benetton (the clothing company) ran an ad campaign showing nothing but sympathetic images and interviews with death row murderers.

Look, there's a non-trivial number of death-row groupies and murderer groupies. Joran van der Sloot got a woman pregnant while incarcerated for murdering another girl, and is the prime suspect in the Natalee Holloway murder/disappearance. There are many such instances.

And the Rolling Stone cover is doubtless driven by the same mentality that drove the Benetton ad campaign.
 
2013-07-17 09:22:41 PM  
We keep gettin' richer, but we can't get our picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone!  WTF does one have to do anyway?  Bomb a major city?

Meh - I've been boycotting RS anyway ever since they stopped printing articles by HST
 
2013-07-17 09:24:16 PM  
So confusing...

So on one hand I don't care that they put his face on the cover since they are qualifying it as him turning into a monster and using this more precious snowflake baby-eyed photo.  Yes you can cite the historical Manson cover of RS but that was prior to the immediate media stardom people can get from killing or otherwise mangling other humans these days.  We're a society of immediate satisfaction and a person can see their face plastered all over the internet and media well before they are even caught.  So on one hand I can say "OK" for an irrelevant paper media source trying to increase their circulation via a cover shot they HAD to know was going to be controversial and done for the sake of being controversial and increasing their ciruclation albeit for one month.  On the other hand I can see where there should be some concern, not outrage/fauxrage/notrage/etc, where you have an icon of magazines such as Rolling Stone plastering this kids face on their cover in what can be seen as a much different light than an accused murderer/maimer of innocents.  The resemblance to the old Jim Morrison cover is striking, though, and a bit creepy.

Easy to figure out their logic.  controversial cover + media coverage = temporary increase in relevance
 
2013-07-17 09:24:46 PM  
I'm saving my outrage for when he's on the cover of "Tiger Beat".

Do they still print "Tiger Beat"?
 
2013-07-17 09:26:36 PM  
i don't see what the problem is. It's like if every day your dog peed the rug but one day when he does it on a specific spot you suddenly scold him.
 
2013-07-17 09:26:57 PM  

BunkoSquad: The best part of today has been watching parts of Twitter get furious at the Rolling Stones.


Really?  Sorry, I Just woke up.  People are really upset by this?

Also, TFA sucks ass for not even including a picture of said cover - and no I did not read it.  I was too busy searching for a picture of the actual cover.
 
2013-07-17 09:27:54 PM  

Darth Macho: ca beach runner: Why not use his mug shot as the cover photo? That would still fit the good kid gone bad narrative. But obviously not sensational enough. Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.

Why?

It's an image. Not an argument for terrorism, not a screed justifying anti-Americanism or murder. An image is a visual depiction that engages the viewer on emotional levels. Any intellectual point that comes out of an image is entirely the creation of the viewer's brain.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x322]

Stripped of context, there are many ways to interpret an image. If you immediately jump to charging blasphemy you might want to take a deeper look at your own subconscious instead of attacking external stimuli.

I'm not afraid of falling for a mass murderer because of a pretty photo.


I don't think many people are. I view their choice of using a glamorous photo of the murderer instead of the normal looking mug shot on their cover as an insult to those who were maimed and lost family or friends. This choice shows a distinct decision was made to try to cash in on the murderer's notoriety instead of just reporting what may otherwise be an interesting story. Sex sells, fark those poor bastards who were in harm's way is the message the cover image conveys to me, hence I disapprove.
 
2013-07-17 09:29:33 PM  

caffeine_addict: So confusing...

So on one hand I don't care that they put his face on the cover since they are qualifying it as him turning into a monster and using this more precious snowflake baby-eyed photo.  Yes you can cite the historical Manson cover of RS but that was prior to the immediate media stardom people can get from killing or otherwise mangling other humans these days.  We're a society of immediate satisfaction and a person can see their face plastered all over the internet and media well before they are even caught.  So on one hand I can say "OK" for an irrelevant paper media source trying to increase their circulation via a cover shot they HAD to know was going to be controversial and done for the sake of being controversial and increasing their ciruclation albeit for one month.  On the other hand I can see where there should be some concern, not outrage/fauxrage/notrage/etc, where you have an icon of magazines such as Rolling Stone plastering this kids face on their cover in what can be seen as a much different light than an accused murderer/maimer of innocents.  The resemblance to the old Jim Morrison cover is striking, though, and a bit creepy.

Easy to figure out their logic.  controversial cover + media coverage = temporary increase in relevance


So what picture should they have used? I'm pretty just about every other picture of him is pretty much the same as this one, with the exception of the picture of him all bloody and being taken away. Should they have used that one? If they did that then these people's outrage would have been that it was too graphic. Don't say his mugshot because the only mugshot picture of him is from a few years before and it is pretty much the same as the cover picture. Or maybe you think they should have not written the article at all and just ignored the question of what can make a by all counts normal everyday kid turn into a terrorist.
 
2013-07-17 09:30:41 PM  
In the media business, this sort of thing is called a "hook" because it snags your interest and then drags you into buying the magazine.

Except for the Rolling Stone magazine, of course, where they call it a "Dr. Hook".

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! (runs away giggling like a little girl)
 
2013-07-17 09:30:57 PM  

ca beach runner: Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.


Huh. I don't recall him being convicted of any crime. Or do you have some evidence the rest of us aren't privy to? 'Cos, last time I checked, all you know is what you've "read in the papers".

/like I said, the public just wants a spectacle, facts be damned
 
2013-07-17 09:35:08 PM  
He's got purdy lips.

Squeal like a pig, boy!*

*Like the Rolling Stone, I'm testing the limits of free speech, notably my theory that you can get away with not being politically correct if you're funny. Not that the Rolling Stone was ever that funny. You get the impression they're a bunch of music hipsters and that they're laughing at you, not with you. Oh well, turnabouts fair play. As we say in the Brantgoose family, "what's sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander".
 
2013-07-17 09:36:09 PM  
I don't know why we ain't on the cover, baby.

We're beautiful subjects.
 
2013-07-17 09:37:19 PM  

ca beach runner: Darth Macho: ca beach runner: Why not use his mug shot as the cover photo? That would still fit the good kid gone bad narrative. But obviously not sensational enough. Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.

Why?

It's an image. Not an argument for terrorism, not a screed justifying anti-Americanism or murder. An image is a visual depiction that engages the viewer on emotional levels. Any intellectual point that comes out of an image is entirely the creation of the viewer's brain.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x322]

Stripped of context, there are many ways to interpret an image. If you immediately jump to charging blasphemy you might want to take a deeper look at your own subconscious instead of attacking external stimuli.

I'm not afraid of falling for a mass murderer because of a pretty photo.

I don't think many people are. I view their choice of using a glamorous photo of the murderer instead of the normal looking mug shot on their cover as an insult to those who were maimed and lost family or friends. This choice shows a distinct decision was made to try to cash in on the murderer's notoriety instead of just reporting what may otherwise be an interesting story. Sex sells, fark those poor bastards who were in harm's way is the message the cover image conveys to me, hence I disapprove.


Here is the only mugshot of him I could find and it is from a few years ago. Would that be much better?

thumbs.mugshots.com
 
2013-07-17 09:38:56 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

I can think of the Charles Manson cover.


OJ Simpson?

Boy, the modern generation is so goddamn coddled, RS used to be much edgier and nobody ever complained.
 
2013-07-17 09:41:33 PM  
Dr Hook is still pissed.
 
2013-07-17 09:47:27 PM  

ongbok: ca beach runner: Darth Macho: ca beach runner: Why not use his mug shot as the cover photo? That would still fit the good kid gone bad narrative. But obviously not sensational enough. Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.

Why?

It's an image. Not an argument for terrorism, not a screed justifying anti-Americanism or murder. An image is a visual depiction that engages the viewer on emotional levels. Any intellectual point that comes out of an image is entirely the creation of the viewer's brain.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x322]

Stripped of context, there are many ways to interpret an image. If you immediately jump to charging blasphemy you might want to take a deeper look at your own subconscious instead of attacking external stimuli.

I'm not afraid of falling for a mass murderer because of a pretty photo.

I don't think many people are. I view their choice of using a glamorous photo of the murderer instead of the normal looking mug shot on their cover as an insult to those who were maimed and lost family or friends. This choice shows a distinct decision was made to try to cash in on the murderer's notoriety instead of just reporting what may otherwise be an interesting story. Sex sells, fark those poor bastards who were in harm's way is the message the cover image conveys to me, hence I disapprove.

Here is the only mugshot of him I could find and it is from a few years ago. Would that be much better?

[thumbs.mugshots.com image 400x450]


Yes, I think this is the one they should have used if their primary intention was to report a story about how this guy became a murderer.
 
2013-07-17 09:49:07 PM  

FlashHarry: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

was bush ever on the cover?


You....are a moron
 
2013-07-17 09:54:12 PM  
Is this another thread where we mock Rolling Stone? Has anyone used the term "relevant" yet?  Or made a snarky comment about a print magazine's circulation numbers? 'Cause that makes you cool.
So very, very cool.
 
2013-07-17 10:02:49 PM  

Disgruntled Goat: Is this another thread where we mock Rolling Stone? Has anyone used the term "relevant" yet?  Or made a snarky comment about a print magazine's circulation numbers? 'Cause that makes you cool.
So very, very cool.


And off into the aether goes your opinion along with your dead tree dinosaurs.
 
2013-07-17 10:23:05 PM  
img.photobucket.com
From the always classy NY Post
 
2013-07-17 10:24:36 PM  
ca beach runner:

I view their choice of using a glamorous photo of the murderer instead of the normal looking mug shot on their cover as an insult to those who were maimed and lost family or friends. This choice shows a distinct decision was made to try to cash in on the murderer's notoriety instead of just reporting what may otherwise be an interesting story. Sex sells, fark those poor bastards who were in harm's way is the message the cover image conveys to me, hence I disapprove.

My brother was killed when the rotors of the helicopter he was riding in struck an unmarked power line and the chopper crashed into a mountain. Does this mean Hollywood movies that have scenes of crashing helicopters are sick and an insult to me? Do I get to complain whenever they play the scene in 'The Dark Knight' where the Joker's goons crash a helicopter using steel cables?

No.

Part of the human experience is not carrying around an endlessly updating list of topics that are forbidden from public discourse. Mr. Crazed Bomber is not profiting from the Rolling Stone piece. Rolling Stone is not selling his merchandise. It's a photo on the cover of a magazine, not a giant middle finger to Boston.

We'll. Get. Over. It.
 
2013-07-17 10:27:39 PM  
So much bull shiatola . . . . those for and against . . . . it was (is) nothing more than a sales strategy but with an unfortunate subject.   I have never bought a RS and never will but they won't miss me.  15 years from now as victims are still dying or living with gross body injuries, this cover will be worth something to mental FU's   He is a "pretty" kid but a total asshole (to be determined by a court).
 
2013-07-17 10:37:36 PM  
You want true magazine outrage? Olivia Munn once appeared on the cover on Playboy AND DID NOT GET NAKED. WHAT THE FARK IS THIS BULLSHIAT. (throws chair)
 
2013-07-17 10:38:45 PM  

Disgruntled Goat: Is this another thread where we mock Rolling Stone? Has anyone used the term "relevant" yet?  Or made a snarky comment about a print magazine's circulation numbers? 'Cause that makes you cool.
So very, very cool.


question is: more or less cool than a graying, print magazine with fading circulation numbers making a blatant attempt to stay relevant?
 
2013-07-17 10:38:46 PM  

sigdiamond2000: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

Several.

But they were all before crybaby faux outrage became a professional sport in this country.


...So none since OJ was "too black" on Time and Newsweek?
 
Oak
2013-07-17 10:45:28 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: ca beach runner: Giving a murderer the Jim Morrison treatment is farked up.

Huh. I don't recall him being convicted of any crime.


You're in the "court of public opinion," not a court of law.  Are you aware there's a distinction?
 
2013-07-17 10:50:39 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: They are just playing to their audience.
The left will eat this up...."oh, poor innocent child, failed by his parents and fell into radical islam."
The right will cancel their non-existing subscriptions.


I bet that's it! You don't get to be "Rolling Stones" without know how to play the audience.
 
2013-07-17 10:54:04 PM  

PiffMan420: Bullshiat. They made a terrorist and a murder look like he was posing for the cover of Tiger Beat.


See, this is just childish.

They "made" him look like that, did they? Show a single lick of proof that the photo was locally retouched in any way, shape, or form.

If you're just pissed that the only publicly-available photos of him where he's not beat to shiat look like any other normal kid, then grow the fark up. He looked like any other normal kid, so it's an accurate representation. What do you expect, that nobody noticed anything wrong with him prior to the attacks but he was wandering around with devil horns and a shirt that says "Jihad, baby!"?

Short of retouching him to make him look like the devil, running a photo of him beat to shiat and placing it in plain sight of kids on store shelves, or not having anything related to their cover story on the cover, what, precisely, would've made your raging hate boner go away?
 
2013-07-17 10:55:40 PM  

stanadamsii: sharpie_69: Here's a simple idea -- if you don't like it don't buy it.  Boom, problem solved.

I don't see anything wrong with the cover, but I suppose I don't have the metric shiat-tonne of sand in my underwear that others seem to have.

Probably not, but if you ever get body parts blown off while you were minding your own business at some nondescript sporting event, because someone thinks they'll make the cover of Rolling Stone (or insert irrelevant media outlet here) in a glamor shot, you may change your mind...


Killing for fame is SO 1990's.
 
2013-07-17 11:00:30 PM  
Older generation: "Rolling Stone magazine still exists?"

Younger generation: "What's Rolling Stone magazine?"
 
2013-07-17 11:01:49 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: BunkoSquad: The best part of today has been watching parts of Twitter get furious at the Rolling Stones.

Well, to be fair, he was just a lonesome schoolboy, and he just came into town.


But not from South Detroit
 
2013-07-17 11:09:51 PM  
img.gawkerassets.com

This is why my generation thinks this generation are a bunch of oversensitive willfully ignorant morons.

Your tragedy is not particularly significant, and doing your best to sweep it under the carpet and not talk about it except in coached approvedspeak only makes it worse.
 
2013-07-17 11:12:58 PM  

Test Tickles: Here's the problem as I see it . . .
BOB DYLAN OR BOSTON BOMBER?

[i1139.photobucket.com image 800x625]


x7c.xanga.com
 
2013-07-17 11:15:23 PM  
America today is full of pussy idiots.
 
2013-07-17 11:15:23 PM  
The problem is nobody wanted to emulate Manson, IMO. Bomberboy there will be given rockstar status by being on the cover, and you'll get people who want to copycat that to some extent. Much like with mass shootings. They are tragic, no doubt about that. But if they were regional stories that stayed that way with a little blurb on the nightly news, people would stop trying to do the exact same thing, again to an extent.
 
2013-07-17 11:17:22 PM  

oldtaku: The best part of this for me is all the outraged Dzhokhar Truthers on twitter, who are young women who think he's too dreamy to be guilty.


Can we round them up and put them somewhere where they won't be a danger to others?
 
2013-07-17 11:17:28 PM  

Tommy Moo: This POS does not deserve a farking glamour shot. This stupid cover pic plays into the retarded teenage girls who are insisting he's innocent because "he's cute."


You don't know what you're talking about. It's not a "glamour shout", it's one of the dozen or so pics of this f*cknut that we've already seen over and over since he was identified. And who the f*ck cares what "retarded" teenage girls think?
 
2013-07-17 11:18:04 PM  
The singer from Disturbed says it's rolling stones fault next time a heinous act occurs but is he responsible for his own lyrics?

Bring the violence / It's significant To the lifeIf you've ever known anyone Bring the violenceIt's significant To the lifeCan you feel it?How do you sleep When you live with your liesOut of your mouth Up from your mindThat kind of thinking Starts a chain reactionYou are a timebomb ticking awayYou need to release What you're feeling insideLet out the beast That you're trying to hideStep right up and be a part of the actionGet your game face on Because it's time to playYou're pushing and fighting your wayYou're ripping it up
 
2013-07-17 11:18:25 PM  

alabasterblack: oldtaku: The best part of this for me is all the outraged Dzhokhar Truthers on twitter, who are young women who think he's too dreamy to be guilty.

Can we round them up and put them somewhere where they won't be a danger to others?


A facility perhaps. With cameras. And female guards.
 
2013-07-17 11:19:23 PM  
a lot of girls at work think hes cute.

o_O
 
2013-07-17 11:20:18 PM  

Oak: You're in the "court of public opinion," not a court of law. Are you aware there's a distinction?


I try to ignore public opinion and supposition and, instead, deal with reality and fact.

After all, the public - by and large - are imbeciles.

/"I love mankind; it's people I can't stand."
 
2013-07-17 11:22:29 PM  

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: You know who else was on a magazine cover?


Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show. Look at the post above yours, it'd already been answered.
 
2013-07-17 11:23:11 PM  

jayphat: The problem is nobody wanted to emulate Manson, IMO. Bomberboy there will be given rockstar status by being on the cover, and you'll get people who want to copycat that to some extent. Much like with mass shootings. They are tragic, no doubt about that. But if they were regional stories that stayed that way with a little blurb on the nightly news, people would stop trying to do the exact same thing, again to an extent.


Yeah! Because no one was ever tortured, killed, or abused by their fellow humans until the rise of national media.

/getting hats to fit must be a chore, for you
 
2013-07-17 11:25:59 PM  

shoegaze99: ArcadianRefugee: This is 'sexified'?

At the very least it's a sympathetic cover.

I'm not particularly outraged by putting him on the cover, but it's hard to argue against the idea that the presentation makes him look cool young dude. If you didn't know any better, you'd think it was a profile of some new musician.


Is his stage name, his band or his album named "The Bomber"?
 
2013-07-17 11:27:21 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: held a city hostage to fear


When did this happen?
 
2013-07-17 11:27:33 PM  

Brainsick: jayphat: The problem is nobody wanted to emulate Manson, IMO. Bomberboy there will be given rockstar status by being on the cover, and you'll get people who want to copycat that to some extent. Much like with mass shootings. They are tragic, no doubt about that. But if they were regional stories that stayed that way with a little blurb on the nightly news, people would stop trying to do the exact same thing, again to an extent.

Yeah! Because no one was ever tortured, killed, or abused by their fellow humans until the rise of national media.

/getting hats to fit must be a chore, for you


The point
.
.
.
.
.
.
you
 
2013-07-17 11:49:28 PM  
Hey, this is America. You're allowed to have any opinion you want, even ones not based in reality, so long as Conservatives aren't offended.
 
2013-07-17 11:52:50 PM  
women are stupid, especially teenage girls.
 
2013-07-17 11:56:47 PM  

fenrael23: [www.unrealfacts.com image 357x497]


Yep.  Came here to see or say exactly this.

I'm not sure why people are bent out of shape about this.  It's not like they're praising the guy... they call him a monster, right? Also:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-18 12:04:51 AM  
Trolling Stone
 
2013-07-18 12:05:36 AM  

nmemkha: Trolling Stone


I repeat, this is not a repeat.
 
2013-07-18 12:15:41 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: dletter: other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.

This is 'sexified'?

[abcnews.go.com image 396x550]


THIS. Holy hell, if you think that's unduly sexy,  go get farking laid, you need it.
 
2013-07-18 12:23:12 AM  

jayphat: Brainsick: jayphat: The problem is nobody wanted to emulate Manson, IMO. Bomberboy there will be given rockstar status by being on the cover, and you'll get people who want to copycat that to some extent. Much like with mass shootings. They are tragic, no doubt about that. But if they were regional stories that stayed that way with a little blurb on the nightly news, people would stop trying to do the exact same thing, again to an extent.

Yeah! Because no one was ever tortured, killed, or abused by their fellow humans until the rise of national media.

/getting hats to fit must be a chore, for you

The point
.
.
.
.
.
.
you


I thought your point was that national media coverage leads to copycats, which is dumb. Please, enlighten me
 
2013-07-18 12:35:53 AM  
There are lots of people in this country who need to get a damn hobby.
 
2013-07-18 12:39:26 AM  

PsiChick: ArcadianRefugee: dletter: other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.

This is 'sexified'?

[abcnews.go.com image 396x550]

THIS. Holy hell, if you think that's unduly sexy,  go get farking laid, you need it.


That's my take on this whole "controversy." Those who are the most outraged really hate the guy, but at the same time they are also attracted to him. Michelle Malkin even called it a "Tiger Beat" cover. This is bound to cause some cognitive dissonance which I believe is the source of the outrage. Otherwise, why didn't the  Boston Herald catch hell for putting James Eagan Holmes on its cover? Or Tamerlan Tsarnaev? Or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
 
2013-07-18 12:40:43 AM  

oldtaku: The best part of this for me is all the outraged Dzhokhar Truthers on twitter, who are young women who think he's too dreamy to be guilty.


Someone I follow tweeted this: "Hey, teen girls who think Dzhokhar is cute. You know who other teen girls thought was cute? Ted Bundy."

I tweeted back: "And I hear John Wayne Gacy was a pillar of the community and a hit with the kids!"
 
2013-07-18 01:06:38 AM  

netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?


GW Bush three times, Charles Manson once...there are probably more.  Did Kissinger ever make the cover?
 
2013-07-18 01:27:08 AM  

ontariolightning: The singer from Disturbed says it's rolling stones fault next time a heinous act occurs but is he responsible for his own lyrics?

Bring the violence / It's significant To the lifeIf you've ever known anyone Bring the violenceIt's significant To the lifeCan you feel it?How do you sleep When you live with your liesOut of your mouth Up from your mindThat kind of thinking Starts a chain reactionYou are a timebomb ticking awayYou need to release What you're feeling insideLet out the beast That you're trying to hideStep right up and be a part of the actionGet your game face on Because it's time to playYou're pushing and fighting your wayYou're ripping it up


That being one of the few Disturbed songs I like, I think you're missing the point of the song.

/I bet you think "Stoopid" by Snot and "God Given" by NIN are racist songs
 
2013-07-18 01:44:08 AM  

GanjSmokr: FlashHarry: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

was bush ever on the cover?

Looks like it...
[assets.rollingstone.com image 367x500]

And they have Obama covered too...
[assets.rollingstone.com image 414x500]


7 times.
 
2013-07-18 01:50:08 AM  

freetomato: I wonder how many magazine covers Bin Laden was on?


I don't know how many but for me, this was the last farking straw. Totally canceled my subscription.

i28.photobucket.com


Seriously though, I bet over 90% of the poutraged people threatening to boycott have never subscribed to, or even read R.S. in 30 years (or ever,) and don't even know who the fark Matt Taibbi is.
 
2013-07-18 01:55:45 AM  

alabasterblack: oldtaku: The best part of this for me is all the outraged Dzhokhar Truthers on twitter, who are young women who think he's too dreamy to be guilty.

Can we round them up and put them somewhere where they won't be a danger to others?


Clamp their wombs shut. It's for the best.
 
2013-07-18 02:23:07 AM  
Has anyone else read the cover article? It's available on the RS site.I liked it. Shed an eerie light back on us and the well-worn questions we still don't like to ask: how well do we know the people we know? How easily can we snap?The Tsarnaevs did a terrible thing, but dehumanizing them only takes us further away from answers.
 
2013-07-18 02:34:56 AM  
No outrage from me. Rolling Stone seems to like to create controversy from time to time to keep things "edgy". I always thought they were supposed to be a music magazine but every time they're in the news it never has anything to do with music.
 
2013-07-18 02:40:14 AM  

gfid: We keep gettin' richer, but we can't get our picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone!  WTF does one have to do anyway?  Bomb a major city?

Meh - I've been boycotting RS anyway ever since they stopped printing articles by HST


Uh, he killed himself. He doesn't write anymore.
 
2013-07-18 03:53:16 AM  

ransack.: gfid: We keep gettin' richer, but we can't get our picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone!  WTF does one have to do anyway?  Bomb a major city?

Meh - I've been boycotting RS anyway ever since they stopped printing articles by HST

Uh, he killed himself. He doesn't write anymore.


Uh, he stopped writing for RS before he killed himself.  Alas, he loved sports too much and ESPN killed him.
 
2013-07-18 04:07:00 AM  
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-07-18 05:06:05 AM  
Wait so what's the scandal? That he'll somehow get famous from this? Holy farking shiat if he wasn't infamous before this then I don't know what would do it.
/I have a free sub so I guess I'll be getting this in the mail.
 
2013-07-18 06:44:16 AM  

Aarontology: dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').

It's a stupid f*cking complaint from people who need to be outraged and terrified all the goddamned time.


this
 
2013-07-18 06:48:00 AM  
If I had a teenage daughter who was Twitter-swooning over this sick little farkwad, I'd delete her Twitter account myself--AFTER taking away her phone and computer, and grounding her for a solid month or six. What the hell kind of parents would allow such a thing?? Does *nobody* pay attention to what their kids are saying and doing online? It's called discipline, America. When your snowflakes do dumbass, embarrassing things, you're supposed to (1) NOTICE, and (2) do something about it. //Thankful right now that my 13 year old is a plain old, garden-variety skateboard-crazy boy
 
2013-07-18 07:13:36 AM  

Oktoberain: If I had a teenage daughter who was Twitter-swooning over this sick little farkwad, I'd delete her Twitter account myself--AFTER taking away her phone and computer, and grounding her for a solid month or six. What the hell kind of parents would allow such a thing?? Does *nobody* pay attention to what their kids are saying and doing online? It's called discipline, America. When your snowflakes do dumbass, embarrassing things, you're supposed to (1) NOTICE, and (2) do something about it. //Thankful right now that my 13 year old is a plain old, garden-variety skateboard-crazy boy


I'd say shoot her computer too.

I'd approve of all that, plus teaching her what a sick twisted farktwat he and his brother (and their followers) arre by showing her the carnage (And I'm the type who hates the "show kids the morgue to tell them not to drink or drive or text or fornicate in cars).

You'll either have a daughter shocked back to her senses or a hardened fanatic ready to be Jihad Squeaky Fromme for FreeHatJahar.

I like those odds.

/Bobby Brady episode with Jesse James FTW!
 
2013-07-18 07:22:20 AM  
www.tooconservative.com
 
2013-07-18 07:23:40 AM  

skullkrusher: Disgruntled Goat: Is this another thread where we mock Rolling Stone? Has anyone used the term "relevant" yet?  Or made a snarky comment about a print magazine's circulation numbers? 'Cause that makes you cool.
So very, very cool.

question is: more or less cool than a graying, print magazine with fading circulation numbers making a blatant attempt to stay relevant?


It's a good and relevant article, so I'd say less cool.
But why do people keep saying "print magazine" as if they're not as online?
 
2013-07-18 07:24:56 AM  
The reason, as I understand it, people around the hub are upset about the cover is not just the fact that the photo is apparently a flattering one of Tsarnaev strangely reminiscent of something out of the Almost Famous, because as has been correctly pointed out, the same or similar photos of him have appeared on other publication covers.  It's more the fact that it's on Rolling Stone's cover, which is almost always reserved for celebrities, stars of music and movies, etc.  N.B. to you really old farks here, yes, an unflattering sketch of Charles Manson was apparently on the cover 20 years before 90% of Rolling Stones' current readership was born, but I'd hardly say that makes a trend.

It's not the article anyone's upset about, it's that in magazine racks in malls, book stores, pharmacies, supermarkets etc. this guy responsible for turning a day of sport, celebration and comraderie into a day of death and tragedy has a cover shot in a place where we've all been conditioned to see celebrity and stardom.  That may just sting a little bit if you happen to no longer own a pair of legs courtesy of this c*nt.

I'm not upset or outraged over it.  They can do whatever they want, it's their magazine.  But I'm not going to sit here and pretend I'm baffled at the negative response; pretend I can't at least understand why it might upset some people.
 
2013-07-18 07:26:19 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: I'd say shoot her computer too.

I'd approve of all that, plus teaching her what a sick twisted farktwat he and his brother (and their followers) arre by showing her the carnage (And I'm the type who hates the "show kids the morgue to tell them not to drink or drive or text


Yeah sure.  Teenage girls respond real well when their daddies shriek "NO you can't like him!  NO!  BAD!!"

Good plan.

Oktoberain: If I had a teenage daughter who was Twitter-swooning over this sick little farkwad, I'd delete her Twitter account myself--AFTER taking away her phone and computer, and grounding her for a solid month or six. What the hell kind of parents would allow such a thing?? Does *nobody* pay attention to what their kids are saying and doing online? It's called discipline, America. When your snowflakes do dumbass, embarrassing things, you're supposed to (1) NOTICE, and (2) do something about it. //Thankful right now that my 13 year old is a plain old, garden-variety skateboard-crazy boy


Right.  Because if there's ONE THING  you ought to expect from your teenage kid it's rationality and logic.

And skateboarder kids are usually anti-social and known to do lotsa drugs.  You should smash his board to be safe....
 
2013-07-18 07:35:50 AM  

skylabdown: [www.tooconservative.com image 450x352]


That image disturbs me.
Why is he wearing glasses that are half-full of water? And what's going on in his mouth, is that a tooth graveyard?
I'd like to imagine that this guy is a DMV clerk from Little Rock and was photographed singing along at an outdoor concert, maybe a ZZ Top gig, and the photo captures the raw power of a beautiful moment for a temporarily free-flying regular guy whooping it up.
But it's more likely he's just an Australian losing his damn mind at the traffic on his commute home. Australians love themselves some water-filled glasses.
 
2013-07-18 07:37:32 AM  

kevinfra: I don't get the outrage either.  He's not the first bad guy on the cover of a magazine, and won't be the last.

I did find it interesting that Fox News was bloviating in horror that a national publication would use this picture to help tell their story.  Of course to tell their story, Fox News used the same image.

Somehow it's terrible for the Rolling Stone to use the picture, but fair and balanced when Fox does.


One is discussing the issue and the other is creating the issue.  You really don't see the difference?
 
2013-07-18 07:39:13 AM  

justoneznot: No outrage from me. Rolling Stone seems to like to create controversy from time to time to keep things "edgy". I always thought they were supposed to be a music magazine but every time they're in the news it never has anything to do with music.


They were never exclusively a music magazine, they have always covered both pop-culture and politics.
 
2013-07-18 07:50:29 AM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Two idiots who made some homemade bombs and blew shiat up for no real reason whatsoever (except for the rampant stupidity in their own heads) is in no way one of the "most important political and cultural issues of our day".


actually what causes people to do such a thing, especially our own citizens, probably is something we should look at a bit more closely.

but go on, be outraged.
 
2013-07-18 09:31:00 AM  

Aarontology: dletter: I don't believe the complaints are about the article (which is what subby's quote was about, I am not even sure RS's response references the cover, other than saying it was a cover storyu), it is mainly the "sexified" cover photo.  Which goes directly to what subby is implying ('yellow journalism').

It's a stupid f*cking complaint from people who need to be outraged and terrified all the goddamned time.


Yeah, people with emotions are stupid.
 
2013-07-18 09:55:32 AM  
Fantastic Article

\Sand
\\Vaginas
\\\Slashies
 
2013-07-18 02:51:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: cannotsuggestaname: netizencain: How many other RS covers featured mass murders?

I can think of the Charles Manson cover.

Now can you think of how many people Manson actually murdered?


kind of a trick question... he had seven people killed but he never killed them himself. After his lawyer passed away his tapes were released, in those tapes it is revealed that Manson had many other people killed also, and that he (Manson) killed some people by himself.

What this means, and why he is listed as a mass murderer, is that at least 7 people were killed by his command which is more than were killed in Boston.
 
Displayed 281 of 281 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report