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  
•       •       •

10993 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 281 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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