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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7869431


(International Business Times)   I guess that Rolling Stone boycott didn't work after all   (ibtimes.com) divider line 90
    More: Followup, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Rolling Stones, innovations, Tsarnaev, Sharon Tate  
•       •       •

5146 clicks; Favorite

90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-01 09:23:33 AM
Repeat from earlier today
 
2013-08-01 09:37:35 AM
It isn't hard for a company like Rolling Stone to inflate their sales to minimize/neutralize potential damage of a controversy.
 
2013-08-01 10:08:17 AM
And they were able to successfully manipulate the poutrage of morons for a good profit.

Awesome
 
2013-08-01 11:05:21 AM
Step 1: Create inflammatory magazine cover
Step 2: Backlash
Step 3: Profit

Works every time
 
2013-08-01 11:08:42 AM
Yeah duh.

Boycott threats turns thing like that in to collector's items.
 
2013-08-01 11:11:48 AM
Duh, the number of people actually offended by this was always far smaller than was implied by the media and I'm willing to be that none of those people subscribed to Rolling Stone in the first place. All the "controversy" did was to give Rolling Stone lots of "free" publicity(which they may very well have paid for).
 
2013-08-01 11:14:23 AM
They have every right to run his picture.

However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

But those running the magazine don't care about that.  They got their money.

But you know, if one of THEIR loved ones was hurt they'd be the first to complain of someone else did this.
 
2013-08-01 11:20:23 AM
I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.
 
2013-08-01 11:25:57 AM

abfalter: They have every right to run his picture.

However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

But those running the magazine don't care about that.  They got their money.

But you know, if one of THEIR loved ones was hurt they'd be the first to complain of someone else did this.


You probably think the news is "depressing" huh?
 
2013-08-01 11:27:18 AM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-08-01 11:29:32 AM
as a subscriber, I waited for this issue to arrive -
the cover isn't particularly flattering. he is a fairly good-looking young man (no more than any young person) but the cover included the text:

THE BOMBER
"how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical islam and became a monster"


how anyone, familiar with the Boston bombing, could find this flattering confuses me. in the current era of committing political/personal/professional suicide by media over-exposure, the idea that "bad press is better than no press" is LONG over. The article itself was well-written and did what I expected - looked into how this person may have become radicalized. A process we might want insight into?

i'm also pleased to think that so many freaking out about this might have, yes, purchased this issue and perhaps have seen the attendant coverage on "The Arctic Ice Melt" - but, I doubt that happened.
 
2013-08-01 11:30:01 AM
They have every right to run his picture.
However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.


Not exactly the job of their magazine. It's for entertainment. The story is interesting. I'd like to read it but then I'd actually have to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I'll wait for someone at work to buy it.
 
2013-08-01 11:32:38 AM
doubled99

you can read the article on-line, actually - RS is available that way, fyi
 
2013-08-01 11:33:03 AM

vygramul: www.bitlogic.com


I don't recall approving that byline.
 
2013-08-01 11:33:12 AM
doubled99:
Not exactly the job of their magazine. It's for entertainment. The story is interesting. I'd like to read it but then I'd actually have to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I'll wait for someone at work to buy it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717
 
2013-08-01 11:34:33 AM

abfalter: It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.


The same people who think this spend months out of their lives watching the Arias and Anthony trials on CourtTV.
 
2013-08-01 11:36:21 AM

Voiceofreason01: Duh, the number of people actually offended by this was always far smaller than was implied by the media and I'm willing to be that none of those people subscribed to Rolling Stone in the first place. All the "controversy" did was to give Rolling Stone lots of "free" publicity(which they may very well have paid for).


Yup. Bunch of hyped-up crap against a magazine that routinely runs excellent hard-news items on topics the ruling-class would rather see ignored.
 
2013-08-01 11:39:10 AM
What boycott?
There was a boycott?
Or was this just a snarky, trolling headline...
 
2013-08-01 11:39:35 AM
You mean the flag waving, bible thumping, muzzie hating, teabagging, chicken pickin' listenin' pickle bums who were whinging about it WEREN'T actually regular readers of a notoriously left leaning music mag?

Shocking!!

It seriously is funny when these derp hounds act like they matter outside of their little bubble of fear and hate.
 
2013-08-01 11:40:07 AM
abfalter: It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

It is depressing to think that the attempt to interest and enlighten the public via a major magazine cover devoted to a domestic terrorist (ie get them to READ THE ARTICLE) will not work for so many because all they will discuss is the photo.

Then again? The advertising industry lives and flourishes with this practice.
 
2013-08-01 11:40:17 AM
of course it did, as long as their are people to come to the aid of corporation in the name of "anti political correctness" boycotts will continue to not work. Don't believe me? Just ask Chik Fil A
 
2013-08-01 11:43:34 AM
Well, I'm certainly boycotting them by gum

Of course I've been boycotting them for at least 30 years so they probably won't notice.
 
2013-08-01 11:43:35 AM

kronicfeld: vygramul: www.bitlogic.com

I don't recall approving that byline.


I made it in another thread on the Rolling Stone controversy and needed something to fill out the cover. It's not a byline, though. It means that inside there's an article about you.
 
2013-08-01 11:45:55 AM

wygit


What boycott?
There was a boycott?


I was wondering about that too.

I can't not read RS any more than I'm already not reading it. And it has nothing to do with any recent covers.
 
2013-08-01 11:52:43 AM

wygit: What boycott?
There was a boycott?


The NAACP called a boycott of Floriduh.

So far, non-LEO violent crime is down 16%.
 
2013-08-01 11:58:58 AM

abfalter: They have every right to run his picture.

However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.

It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

But those running the magazine don't care about that.  They got their money.

But you know, if one of THEIR loved ones was hurt they'd be the first to complain of someone else did this.


i don't see how it's flattering. he looks like a teenager because he is/was one. would you have them photoshop an evil mustache and some devil horns on him?
 
2013-08-01 12:00:01 PM
Makes sense, I bought two. One is in a mylar bag in my climate-controlled storage unit. The other is next to me on my nightstand, crusty with jizz.
 
2013-08-01 12:03:23 PM

nburghmatt: i don't see how it's flattering. he looks like a teenager because he is/was one. would you have them photoshop an evil mustache and some devil horns on him?


No, but he's obviously been "Trayvonned". They published the most cutesy, flattering picture they could find of him. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't go with the 14 y/o pic.
 
2013-08-01 12:04:44 PM

HAMMERTOE: I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.


There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar
 
2013-08-01 12:05:19 PM
Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?
 
2013-08-01 12:08:48 PM
It was a frickin' selfie. If they had the photo of his brother in a boa taking pictures of himself in the street would that have been glamorous too? They're obviously narcissists, an interesting relevant feature, and the photo shows that. Annie Leibowitz wan't having Johar blowing kisses at the camera!
 
2013-08-01 12:12:00 PM
The guy is young (and looks even younger) and reasonably attractive. He's going to look good in a photo. It's not like Rolling Stone had a photo shoot and dressed him up all GQ style and put that on the cover. The bombing was news, the bombers are news, and a magazine put him on the cover. I don't see how this is offensive at all, especially when they refer to him as a monster on the cover.
 
2013-08-01 12:12:26 PM

somedude210: HAMMERTOE: I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.

There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar


It's depressingly easy to find people on twitter who think he is both attractive and innocent
 
2013-08-01 12:12:34 PM
Not exactly the job of their magazine. It's for entertainment. The story is interesting. I'd like to read it but then I'd actually have to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I'll wait for someone at work to buy it.

Or you could just go to rollingstone.com and read the full article and issue. See
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717

Annual sub to R.S. is something like $12 and gives you full access to their complete archives.
 
2013-08-01 12:13:40 PM

ElwoodCuse: It's depressingly easy to find people on twitter who think he is both attractive and innocent


we also had a following of Manson too. It happens. Evil breeds groupies
 
2013-08-01 12:14:28 PM
stuffy:
Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?


no - it may still be foolish to judge something you've never bought, however.
 
2013-08-01 12:14:40 PM
People who usually broadcast that they are boycotting something would not have bought it in the first place. They just want everyone to know they are "taking a stand" without actually having to DO anything.
 
2013-08-01 12:14:56 PM
Of course not.
The cover was designed to appeal to the liberals and it worked.

That poor kid was let down by his family and fell into radicalism. Oops he just fell.
 
2013-08-01 12:15:58 PM

stuffy: Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?


This. Why would anyone buy that sensationalist rag in the first place? Ads on how to beat drug tests?
 
2013-08-01 12:16:05 PM

Aarontology: the poutrage of morons

shannonallenmusic.files.wordpress.com

 
2013-08-01 12:16:31 PM
Meh, RS is less relevent every day.
What next?

*yawn* *picks nose*
Oooo interesting.
 
2013-08-01 12:16:58 PM
Like I said in the other thread, of course the issue will generate curiosity, but newsstand sales are less than 5% of their business. The boycott will come down to how it affects subscriptions, which this article doesn't even consider. If 10% of subscribers refuse to renew because of this, they will lose out tremendously.
 
2013-08-01 12:17:34 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: stuffy: Is it still boycotting if you never bought the crap anyway?

This. Why would anyone buy that sensationalist rag in the first place? Ads on how to beat drug tests?


I bet you watch a lot of Dr. Oz and Fox News don't you?
 
2013-08-01 12:18:52 PM
Besides, most of the extra sales are probably speculators who imagine the issue is going to fetch them $100 on eBay someday.
 
2013-08-01 12:19:44 PM
I read RS while I ate a chick-fil-a sandwich. Finished with a rainbow Oreo dessert.
 
2013-08-01 12:22:25 PM

somedude210: There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.


Forgive me. I misspoke. Certainly, they did 'apprehend" him. After they failed to FIND him. But they surely made up for that by having a "shootout" with him, (despite his being unarmed.) The only casualty that evening was a defenseless, innocent boat.

Citation:
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/04/david-henneberry-found-boston-bomb er -boat/

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Citation:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/boston-door-to-door- se arches-legal/64461/

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you.

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar


I have exactly ZERO reason to lie. Like I said, it was a personal friend of mine, and her exact words were, "I just can't believe it! He's too cute to be a terrorist!"
 
2013-08-01 12:26:25 PM
Oh, so we're not a nation of cowards fleeing from a photograph? Good to know, I was getting worried
 
2013-08-01 12:26:49 PM

HAMMERTOE: nburghmatt: i don't see how it's flattering. he looks like a teenager because he is/was one. would you have them photoshop an evil mustache and some devil horns on him?

No, but he's obviously been "Trayvonned". They published the most cutesy, flattering picture they could find of him. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't go with the 14 y/o pic.


Some people think the bomber is cute. Others think he's an ugly terrorist monster. These sorts of assessments are subjective by nature. It's telling that you refer to the cover as "most cutesy, flattering."
As far as your lamenting tooold:(.jpg, I'm not going anywhere near that but you might want to have a seat right over there.
 
2013-08-01 12:27:17 PM

somedude210: Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering


Specific Citation, in case you want to get a little more "in-depth".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313249/Boston-bomber-search -M oment-SWAT-teams-ordered-innocent-neighbors-houses-GUNPOINT.html
 
2013-08-01 12:28:35 PM

Pep Streebeck: Aarontology: the poutrage of morons

[shannonallenmusic.files.wordpress.com image 628x362]


yes. Really.

All of this manufactured poutrage was by morons who 1) literally judge things by their cover (They flat out called him a monster on the cover, but they're more concerned that it's "glamorizing" him because he didn't get the OJ on Time treatment,  2) are upset that a terrorist could look like a normal white kid who wouldn't be out of place wherever they live instead of Osama bin Laden, (in short. he looks like them and that makes them profoundly uncomfortable) and 3) think that a picture can somehow encourage other people to commit acts of evil.

If a f*cking picture is enough to get people pissed off and afraid, then really they should just never leave the house because they're incapable of dealing with the real world

Morons.
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report