What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Marathon Bomber on Rolling Stone cover (1 Viewer)

Major

Footballguy
Can someone please explain to me all the outrage over the latest Rolling Stone magazine cover? I just don't get it.

 
Do I think that the reaction is overblown? Yes. I also think that the story's angle - that Tsarnaev was good looking, popular, etc. - justifies the cover.

Still, this reaction is very predictable.

 
I think it's rather genius - depicting the jihadist as this innocent looking boy next door instead of the usual cave dwelling, bearded, evil doer fundamentalist...... I guess ignorance is bliss and some would rather bury their head in sand. I'd rather know what's happening in the world around me. Terrorism has no face.

 
Beyond the insensitivity of it, I'm not a huge fan of making these people celebrities. You are pretty much giving into them by giving them an outlet to get their message out. I'm sick of these psychos getting a pulpit to preach off of while the victims are seemingly ignored.

Understanding whose these people are and what makes them tick are jobs for psychologists and law enforcement but publicizing their message is what they want and will undoubtedly lead others to do the same.

 
Beyond the insensitivity of it, I'm not a huge fan of making these people celebrities. You are pretty much giving into them by giving them an outlet to get their message out. I'm sick of these psychos getting a pulpit to preach off of while the victims are seemingly ignored.

Understanding whose these people are and what makes them tick are jobs for psychologists and law enforcement but publicizing their message is what they want and will undoubtedly lead others to do the same.
Yes, let's entrust that knowledge to that cloistered few nannies who take care of things for us.

 
Haven't t[SIZE=10.5pt]errorists [/SIZE]been on the cover of TIME magazine for years? What's the difference?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I bet the liberals would be singing a different tune if George Zimmerman was on the cover.
I don't have a problem with either one being on the cover but hey free private enterprise, right? funny how the tea party is all up in arms.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thought it was a feature on Syd Barrett as soon as I saw the cover.

I don't totally get the outrage, but it is a pretty tasteless attempt by RS to renew interest in its magazine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thought it was a feature on Syd Barrett as soon as I saw the cover.

I don't totally get the outrage, but it is a pretty tasteless attempt by RS to renew interest in its magazie.
Right. The difference between Time and RS is that RS likes to portray itself as being hip and edgy, as much or more than it does as a hard news source. People naturally assume that "making a splash", which is what they usually try to do, is what they're also using Tsarnaev's image to do here.

 
RS became irrelevant years before they put Don Johnson on the cover with a freakin' guitar.

Creem magazine was THE rock mag in the 80's.

 
It probably would have gone over better had he been pictured wearing his orange jumpsuit. As it is, many major stores around here, including Walmart, have opted not to carry this month's edition.

 
I bet the liberals would be singing a different

tune if George Zimmerman was on the cover.
I don't have a problem with either one being on

the cover but hey free private enterprise, right? funny how the tea party is all up in arms.
I think either one would be insensitive to the victims in both tragedies but putting the Marathon Bomber on the cover so soon is much worse. Rolling Stone has every right to do it and of course they did it knowing full well what the reaction would be. This was done with the intention to get people talking about their magazine for the first time in a long time. It is crass and very cynical ploy to become relevant again.

 
I also don't understand the argument that Rolling Stone only should put musicians on their cover. Matt Taibii is one of the most hard hitting journalists covering all sorts of financial and geopolitical issues. He's the only reason I have Rolling Stone bookmarked on my cpu.

 
RS became irrelevant years before they put Don Johnson on the cover with a freakin' guitar.

Creem magazine was THE rock mag in the 80's.
:goodposting:

Much better mag.
RS became irrelevant years before they put Don Johnson on the cover with a freakin' guitar.

Creem magazine was THE rock mag in the 80's.
:goodposting:

Much better mag.
Big fan of Creem, but was more of a Circus guy.
Circus was also better than RS.

Then again since the 70's, Teen Beat may also have been better than RS.

 
RS became irrelevant years before they put Don Johnson on the cover with a freakin' guitar.

Creem magazine was THE rock mag in the 80's.
:goodposting:

Much better mag.
RS became irrelevant years before they put Don Johnson on the cover with a freakin' guitar.

Creem magazine was THE rock mag in the 80's.
:goodposting:

Much better mag.
Big fan of Creem, but was more of a Circus guy.
Circus was also better than RS.

Then again since the 70's, Teen Beat may also have been better than RS.
nah, The Source (during hip hop's golden age) fades em all

 
RS became irrelevant years before they put Don Johnson on the cover with a freakin' guitar.

Creem magazine was THE rock mag in the 80's.
:goodposting:

Much better mag.
RS became irrelevant years before they put Don Johnson on the cover with a freakin' guitar.

Creem magazine was THE rock mag in the 80's.
:goodposting:

Much better mag.
Big fan of Creem, but was more of a Circus guy.
Circus was also better than RS.

Then again since the 70's, Teen Beat may also have been better than RS.
I was more of a Family Circus guy

 
I'm starting to come around. Even Charles Manson made the cover of the Rolling Stone, as did the 0, probably more than once.

ETA: That said, if the bombing happened in your backyard, you might be a bit more sensitive to the issue, too.
The Manson cover was actually worse as it's headline comes across as vapid praise, calling him "the most dangerous man alive".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm starting to come around. Even Charles Manson made the cover of the Rolling Stone, as did the 0, probably more than once.

ETA: That said, if the bombing happened in your backyard, you might be a bit more sensitive to the issue, too.
It did. Most of my family lives in Boston or is from there.
Fwiw, I wasn't really addressing you personally, but the rest of the board. take care.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top