http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/1 ... f=business (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/cvs-tedeschi-rolling-stone_n_3611805.html?utm_hp_ref=business)
(//http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/HT_rolling_stone_cover_Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev_large_thg_130717_5x7_608.jpg)
This is causing a bit of an uproar, with CVS and Walgreens, along with some other smaller companies, saying they will refuse to sell this issue.
The thing is... it is an advertisement for the main story in the article. And for those of you who don't know, Rolling Stone is one of the few magazines that actually does old school, investigative journalism anymore (Michael Hastings was one of their writers, who was probably the most legitimate investigative journalists against the government before [s:2vkrkd4l]being killed[/s:2vkrkd4l] dying.) and the article sounds interesting. And what then should they have used as the cover?
Additionally, what is the difference between RS having Tsarnaev's face on it and it is an outrage, yet Osama bin Laden's face was plastered over every magazine after 9/11 and no one batted an eye? People say this legitimizes, encourages actions like his because you will have your face on the magazine... but again, we did the same with OBL and there was no outrage.
Finally people are making an issue in that he looks too "human" in this photo, which I think is great. Very few people are "born" bad people, it is something they are taught or fall into. Everyone of us has the potential to become what would be considered an evil person, and by demonizing "bad" people you ignore the fundamental problems and instead put them into the "other" group. I have a whole thread on that so I won't go into it again.
So what do you think... a big to-do over nothing or is RS in the wrong here?
His picture has been posted all over the place, on the news, book covers, magazine covers, and record covers, so now its a problem on a liberal mag. :lol: Solitary
Quote from: "Shiranu"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/cvs-tedeschi-rolling-stone_n_3611805.html?utm_hp_ref=business
[ Image (//http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/HT_rolling_stone_cover_Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev_large_thg_130717_5x7_608.jpg) ]
This is causing a bit of an uproar, with CVS and Walgreens, along with some other smaller companies, saying they will refuse to sell this issue.
The thing is... it is an advertisement for the main story in the article. And for those of you who don't know, Rolling Stone is one of the few magazines that actually does old school, investigative journalism anymore (Michael Hastings was one of their writers, who was probably the most legitimate investigative journalists against the government before [s:2futmxp3]being killed[/s:2futmxp3] dying.) and the article sounds interesting. And what then should they have used as the cover?
Additionally, what is the difference between RS having Tsarnaev's face on it and it is an outrage, yet Osama bin Laden's face was plastered over every magazine after 9/11 and no one batted an eye? People say this legitimizes, encourages actions like his because you will have your face on the magazine... but again, we did the same with OBL and there was no outrage.
Finally people are making an issue in that he looks too "human" in this photo, which I think is great. Very few people are "born" bad people, it is something they are taught or fall into. Everyone of us has the potential to become what would be considered an evil person, and by demonizing "bad" people you ignore the fundamental problems and instead put them into the "other" group. I have a whole thread on that so I won't go into it again.
So what do you think... a big to-do over nothing or is RS in the wrong here?
They call him a "monster" on the cover. It's not a support piece.
I don't see why his picture on Rolling Stone would be any more controversial than on the front page of newspapers, where it has appeared. Silliness. The one thing that I would say is that it reminds me of a Rolling Stone cover with Jim Morrison. Maybe they think the Stone is idolizing him or something.
This is the cover I've been hearing about this week? I don't get it. What is the problem, that he looks human?
Ridiculous and hardly worth commenting on.
Rolling Stone magazine has immortalized many. It's a statement - not just news. People feel like he's been glamorized with such a cute picture --- and yes --- that very well could send *bad* messages to our youth. Personally, I think they did it for the controversy which sells magazines. Sometimes bad publicity is just as good as good publicity.
Yeah I think the 'problem' is he looks too much like a pop star. If he was wearing muslim gear and clutching a bomb or at least laughing maniacally while reading a Qur'an, that would fit more into how terrorists are supposed to look :lol:
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Yeah I think the 'problem' is he looks too much like a pop star. If he was wearing muslim gear and clutching a bomb or at least laughing maniacally while reading a Qur'an, that would fit more into how terrorists are supposed to look :lol:
My opinion is there Is Not "one look fits all" for terrorists. You cannot photograph the seething-rotting-broken mind from the inside. So I don't think they could have given the pic a different look - to show him for who he really was. If Rolling Stone Magazine wants to glorify someone - maybe one of the victims of the Boston Bombing instead of the crazy person who caused it.
The kid appears glorified and RS got Allllll the press they could squeezed outta that one.
I'll never look at a Rolling Stone cover the same way again. I used to respect the publication.
There's a term for making the most from another's misfortune --- what is it? Can't remember. #-o
Willie Nelson has to travel by Greyhound? :eek: Who cares?
Oh its the Tsarnaev kid that's got everyone up in arms. Well I suppose this cover is going to be banned certain retailers. And I suppose that will get RS lots of free press which will in turn sell more of the issue just about any other cover would have. And I suppose that was the plan all along. So yeah, who cares?
People don't want to hear that terrorists were once normal human beings. It makes it harder to see things in black and white and might even force them to think. And we can't have that.
Quote from: "Plu"People don't want to hear that terrorists were once normal human beings. It makes it harder to see things in black and white and might even force them to think. And we can't have that.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but that isnt the problem. The problem is that far too many of us (including several on this forum) are of the "this is a good, good boy pushed to his limits by the horrible, loathesome monster that is the USA. WE did this!!!". People are sick and tired of the media taking murderous degenerates and publishing their eighth grade spring dance pictures as an honest representation of him. The bloodied, wild-eyed mass killer holding a gun under a boat tarp IS the accurate representation of what he is. Don't post a picture where he looks like a young John Holmes and try to make us wonder what we did to make him blow up a city. Enough. A murderer is a murderer. I don't care how cute he was at 14.
Then I'm guessing people aren't falling over the cover, because it mentions none of that at all... it's pretty specific about it being about family and falling into radical islam; it doesn't even mention "usa" anywhere.
I don't know enough backstory to really comment on the rest of it, though. The cover, on its own, doesn't seem outrageous in any way.
They put Charlie Manson on the cover in 1970.
He looks like he might be quite a "popular" fellow in prison.
I am pretty sure in the 30 or 40 years of looking at Newsweek that they have had pictures of some pretty nasty folks. I think they had Hitler as Man of the Year back in the late 30's didn't they?
Isn't it normal to wonder how a once nice kid, good student, and personable young man turned into a monster? I think it is the most important thing we can study in cases like this. I see nothing controversial about it, and I really do not understand the people who are upset about it, even after reading why they are.
Of course, I remember when Time Mag named Hitler one of the top 5 most influential persons of the 20th century. There was an uproar, some claiming they would never buy the magazine again. But hey, Time wasn't wrong....
Quote from: "Aroura33"Isn't it normal to wonder how a once nice kid, good student, and personable young man turned into a monster? I think it is the most important thing we can study in cases like this. I see nothing controversial about it, and I really do not understand the people who are upset about it, even after reading why they are.
Of course, I remember when Time Mag named Hitler one of the top 5 most influential persons of the 20th century. There was an uproar, some claiming they would never buy the magazine again. But hey, Time wasn't wrong....
Of course its normal to wonder. But what the publications do is push the subliminal buttons of the self-loathers who enjoy making every killer a product of our terrible way of life. They don't actually "say" anything, but they show the little league and prom pictures and imply by proxy that YOU did this and I did this by virtue of our morally bankrupt society. If you want an accurate portrayal, put a mugshot or an Intepol dossier picture of him on your cover, not what looks like a reproduction of a Bob Dylan album cover with windswept hair and boyish looks. It panders to the self-haters.
I'm sure we can do all the wondering and soul-searching that the situation merits without having our Pavlovian bells rung by the choice of photographs. That's my objection, not the idea of him being on the cover.
Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"If you want an accurate portrayal, put a mugshot or an Intepol dossier picture of him on your cover, not what looks like a reproduction of a Bob Dylan album cover with windswept hair and boyish looks. It panders to the self-haters.
I'm sure we can do all the wondering and soul-searching that the situation merits without having our Pavlovian bells rung by the choice of photographs. That's my objection, not the idea of him being on the cover.
Bingo. =D>
and I thought I was the only one who saw Bob Dylan...