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 16
    More: Followup, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Rolling Stones, innovations, Tsarnaev, Sharon Tate  
•       •       •

5157 clicks; Favorite

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-01 11:14:23 AM  
3 votes:
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 12:31:06 PM  
2 votes:
I wonder what it's like inside the head of a "Conservative," being terrified of imaginary things all day long, offended by phantoms, unable to leave the house without being armed, spending all your money on monstrously overpriced "survival food" and GOLD! And railing against Rolling Stone.

/Pictures of the war criminal Allan West on conservative magazine covers is just fine though. Same with convicted traitor Oliver North.
2013-08-01 12:28:35 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-08-01 12:17:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:36:21 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:29:32 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:05:21 AM  
2 votes:
Step 1: Create inflammatory magazine cover
Step 2: Backlash
Step 3: Profit

Works every time
2013-08-01 10:08:17 AM  
2 votes:
And they were able to successfully manipulate the poutrage of morons for a good profit.

Awesome
2013-08-01 12:12:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:39:35 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:34:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:33:12 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:30:01 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:20:23 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:11:48 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:37:35 AM  
1 votes:
It isn't hard for a company like Rolling Stone to inflate their sales to minimize/neutralize potential damage of a controversy.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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