Boston Bomber Makes the Cover of Rolling Stone.

Just when I thought Rolling Sone couldn't get any shittier.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594141/rolling-stone-cover-featuring-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-stirs-online-backlash/

That's a good message to send to troubled youth.

You would think news organizations would have realized by now that posting the pictures of alleged and convicted murderors is what they want. Don't give them fame and it makes them less likely to commit their crime.ad1x2

tru.dat

i forget the name of the asshole who shot up V-tech, which is the way it should be.

THE BOMBER - how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monsterRolling Stone cover

I don't understand the outrage.  It's not like they're saying he's a hero.  It says right there on the cover:  "monster".  Is it because he's a good looking dude that people are accusing the magazine of glamorizing terrorism?  Should they have found a less flattering photograph?  Maybe photoshop some pimples on his face?

[quote="Rolling Stone cover"]THE BOMBER - how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monsterOleg_Huzwog

I don't understand the outrage.  It's not like they're saying he's a hero.  It says right there on the cover:  "monster".  Is it because he's a good looking dude that people are accusing the magazine of glamorizing terrorism?  Should they have found a less flattering photograph?  Maybe photoshop some pimples on his face?

No, but say you are a troubled kid in a similar situation looking for attention... Something like this illustrates that doing terrible things will give him or her all the attention in the world...

I do find this a tad disrespectful.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[quote="Rolling Stone cover"]THE BOMBER - how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monsterSqueets

I don't understand the outrage.  It's not like they're saying he's a hero.  It says right there on the cover:  "monster".  Is it because he's a good looking dude that people are accusing the magazine of glamorizing terrorism?  Should they have found a less flattering photograph?  Maybe photoshop some pimples on his face?

No, but say you are a troubled kid in a similar situation looking for attention... Something like this illustrates that doing terrible things will give him or her all the attention in the world...

Believing that anyone would do what he did because they're "looking for attention" is absurdly simplistic.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]You would think news organizations would have realized by now that posting the pictures of alleged and convicted murderors is what they want. Don't give them fame and it makes them less likely to commit their crime.Jimn_tonic

tru.dat

i forget the name of the asshole who shot up V-tech, which is the way it should be.

[quote="Rolling Stone cover"]THE BOMBER - how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monsterOleg_Huzwog

I don't understand the outrage.  It's not like they're saying he's a hero.  It says right there on the cover:  "monster".  Is it because he's a good looking dude that people are accusing the magazine of glamorizing terrorism?  Should they have found a less flattering photograph?  Maybe photoshop some pimples on his face?

It's quite unusual for CIA patsies to appear on magazine covers.

 

Believing that anyone would do what he did because they're "looking for attention" is absurdly simplistic.

Oleg_Huzwog

but it's true, in many cases.

especially with younger folks

You would think news organizations would have realized by now that posting the pictures of alleged and convicted murderors is what they want. Don't give them fame and it makes them less likely to commit their crime.ad1x2

I trust there was an equal level of rage over the 3 or 4 times Time magazine featured Bin Laden on its cover?  No?  Why not?  Was it because that man was a butt-ugly mofo, so nobody could possibly accuse Time of glamorizing him?

I trust there was an equal level of rage over the 3 or 4 times Time magazine featured Bin Laden on its cover?  No?  Why not?  Was it because that man was a butt-ugly mofo, so nobody could possibly accuse Time of glamorizing him?

Oleg_Huzwog

I trust there was an equal level of rage over the 3 or 4 times Time magazine featured Bin Laden on its cover?  No?  Why not?  Was it because that man was a butt-ugly mofo, so nobody could possibly accuse Time of glamorizing him?

Oleg_Huzwog

Bin Laden was one of the worlds most elusive terrorists

boston-bomber asshole was some random jihadist.

does every jihadist make the cover of best selling magazines?

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

I trust there was an equal level of rage over the 3 or 4 times Time magazine featured Bin Laden on its cover?  No?  Why not?  Was it because that man was a butt-ugly mofo, so nobody could possibly accuse Time of glamorizing him?

lowkey254

I'm not talking about the Man of the Year, but I suppose you could include that in this context.  I'm talking about just regular covers like this one: Link.  That one came out a few weeks after 9/11.

[quote="Rolling Stone cover"]THE BOMBER - how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monsterOleg_Huzwog

I don't understand the outrage.  It's not like they're saying he's a hero.  It says right there on the cover:  "monster".  Is it because he's a good looking dude that people are accusing the magazine of glamorizing terrorism?  Should they have found a less flattering photograph?  Maybe photoshop some pimples on his face?

The shot they used is pretty glamorized, but I do agree with your overall point. And I'd say that they used that shot because they care about the aesthetics of their magazine covers, not because they wanted to glamorize terrorism.

This magazine just keeps getting more liberal and more stupid each year.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

I trust there was an equal level of rage over the 3 or 4 times Time magazine featured Bin Laden on its cover?  No?  Why not?  Was it because that man was a butt-ugly mofo, so nobody could possibly accuse Time of glamorizing him?

Jimn_tonic

Bin Laden was one of the worlds most elusive terrorists

boston-bomber asshole was some random jihadist.

does every jihadist make the cover of best selling magazines?

A good number of high-profile mass murderers make covers.

How many covers has Charles Manson appeared on over the years?

Better yet, take this Time cover of the Columbine shooters as an example:  Link.  This one is remarkably similar to the Rolling Stone cover - nice photographs of the ones who did it, along with a question of what turned these guys into monsters.

[QUOTE="lowkey254"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

I trust there was an equal level of rage over the 3 or 4 times Time magazine featured Bin Laden on its cover?  No?  Why not?  Was it because that man was a butt-ugly mofo, so nobody could possibly accuse Time of glamorizing him?

I'm not talking about the Man of the Year, but I suppose you could include that in this context.  I'm talking about just regular covers like this one: Link.  That one came out a few weeks after 9/11.

I get where you're coming from. I also understand the rage. lowkey254

Maybe the rage is less to do with this specific cover, and more to do with the age of social media?  It's significantly easier now (versus ten years ago) for a few people to say "this is an outrage", communicate those feelings to others, some of whom then say to themselves "hey yeah, now that you mention it, it IS an outrage", so on and so forth... until eventually enough people are tweeting their rage that the rage itself becomes a story worth reporting.  Of the people who have been expressing their rage, how many would've even been aware of the cover's existence if this had taken place ten years ago?

[QUOTE="lowkey254"]I get where you're coming from. I also understand the rage. Oleg_Huzwog

Maybe the rage is less to do with this specific cover, and more to do with the age of social media?  It's significantly easier now (versus ten years ago) for a few people to say "this is an outrage", communicate those feelings to others, some of whom then say to themselves "hey yeah, now that you mention it, it IS an outrage", so on and so forth... until eventually enough people are tweeting their rage that the rage itself becomes a story worth reporting.  Of the people who have been expressing their rage, how many would've even been aware of the cover's existence if this had taken place ten years ago?

The folks at RS know what they are doing. There is no such thing as bad publicity and this will only garner them a ton of clicks and interest in their rag. I think CVS won't carry the issue, but that won't outweigh the mileage they'll get out of this controversy. Pretty despicable glorifing someone responsible for this:

I trust there was an equal level of rage over the 3 or 4 times Time magazine featured Bin Laden on its cover?  No?  Why not?  Was it because that man was a butt-ugly mofo, so nobody could possibly accuse Time of glamorizing him?

Oleg_Huzwog

We really need a terrorist runway show.

it would be faaaaaaaaaaaabulous.

Increasingly irrelevant magazine makes attention-whoring moveJML897

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

I trust there was an equal level of rage over the 3 or 4 times Time magazine featured Bin Laden on its cover?  No?  Why not?  Was it because that man was a butt-ugly mofo, so nobody could possibly accuse Time of glamorizing him?

JML897

A valid point.  Worth noting though, that it's not completely unprecedented.  They did do that cover story of Charles Manson.

Willie Nelson. Some shit about global warming. That atrocious Jay Z Album. The "hey hey hey" singer. A bombing suspect. I love it.MrPraline

The Jay Z album is bad?

I haven't listened to it yet, so the only opinion I've formed is that I think the title is whack.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Willie Nelson. Some shit about global warming. That atrocious Jay Z Album. The "hey hey hey" singer. A bombing suspect. I love it.GreySeal9

The Jay Z album is bad?

I haven't listened to it yet, so the only opinion I've formed is that I think the title is whack.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Willie Nelson. Some shit about global warming. That atrocious Jay Z Album. The "hey hey hey" singer. A bombing suspect. I love it.GreySeal9

The Jay Z album is bad?

I haven't listened to it yet, so the only opinion I've formed is that I think the title is whack.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Willie Nelson. Some shit about global warming. That atrocious Jay Z Album. The "hey hey hey" singer. A bombing suspect. I love it.MrPraline

The Jay Z album is bad?

I haven't listened to it yet, so the only opinion I've formed is that I think the title is whack.

The Black Album is dope. I think that's the last one I thought that great as well. Watch the Throne was okay.

Jay Z is well past his prime and I'm not really excited to listen to this latest album, tho I'll probably end up listening to it when I'm bored.

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Willie Nelson. Some shit about global warming. That atrocious Jay Z Album. The "hey hey hey" singer. A bombing suspect. I love it.JML897

The Jay Z album is bad?

I haven't listened to it yet, so the only opinion I've formed is that I think the title is whack.

I'm not surprised at all. I heard a little clip of one of the songs on NPR and it sounded pretty throwaway.

This looks pretty awesome.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[quote="Rolling Stone cover"]THE BOMBER - how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monsterFightingfan

I don't understand the outrage.  It's not like they're saying he's a hero.  It says right there on the cover:  "monster".  Is it because he's a good looking dude that people are accusing the magazine of glamorizing terrorism?  Should they have found a less flattering photograph?  Maybe photoshop some pimples on his face?

Nobody complains when the media glamorize other CIA agents.

Why are they complaining about this one? :|

Nobody complains when the media glamorize other CIA agents.

Why are they complaining about this one? :|

Stesilaus

Obligatory

A good number of high-profile mass murderers make covers.

How many covers has Charles Manson appeared on over the years?

Better yet, take this Time cover of the Columbine shooters as an example:  Link.  This one is remarkably similar to the Rolling Stone cover - nice photographs of the ones who did it, along with a question of what turned these guys into monsters.

Oleg_Huzwog

Very true, and it's kind of the point i was trying to make.

The reason why the Columbine dipshits did what they did was to become infamous. It had very little to do with the jocks and bullies (most of the kids they killed were their friends; fellow nerds hanging out in the library), and the media ate it up and gave them exactly what they wanted.

They just want to cash in off a tragedy.

I remember when the most famous killer on Rolling Stone was Brandon Flowers.