link to cnn article about the cover This just seems wrong. They choose a picture that seems almost sexy. What say you?
Who gives a flying fuck what Rolling Stone says or does? I wouldn't wipe a rhinoceros' ass with that worthless publication...
Torn on this one. The media takes no responsibility when it comes to mass killings despite the fact that the killers crave the attention and (ostensibly) get what they want as a reward for their misdeeds--infamy. Glamorizing these lunatics will encourage the other crazies out there. On the other hand it is important to have an ongoing discussion regarding the way murder and terrorism makes us feel, why it happens and how to prevent or limit it in the future. It's not like the news channels haven't been putting this kid's picture up every night for months.
I'm torn too. I don't want people like Dzhokhar to be seen in a positive light or to be highlighted by the media, because I fear that this is what some "bad guys" want. They want fame, they want attention, and they want to be looked at as a rock star. On the other hand, the humanization of Dzhokhar can help us understand the motivations of people like him, and the complexities of the situation. The rolling stone story (I have not read it yet) is suppose to be a very interesting look at how someone can go from living an integrated and socially accepted life, one with promise and friends and the picture of young American growth, to a monster that can maim and kill without care. This should be looked at and is an interesting aspect that many in America will be afraid to look at. I certainly have a visceral reaction to the cover, wanting not only him pay for his actions, but also Rolling Stone and its publishers to pay. But the more intellectual side certainly understands the importance of such a cover, showing the Jekyll to my vision of Hyde.
WTF is up with JAY-Z's Magna Carta stumble. Seriously. Shit like that doesn't belong on the cover of a magazine.
I meant the JAY-Z thing, not the picture In all honesty, the cover is thought provoking. Why is that a bad thing?
I understand that, it being thought provoking, but did you have a visceral reaction to it when you saw it? I did, although the more I THINK about it the more I understand and accept the use of that image.
I think part of any negative reaction to the cover is likely due to ROlling Stone being a pop culture magazine, and less a news magazine. So while they want to write news pieces, it looks more like they are glorifying him or making him an icon, whereas if Time put him on the cover, people likely wouldn't think much of it.
There's some validity to this but Rolling Stone went to another level with Hunter S. Thompson writing for it back in the day, most of which was political. Matt Taibbi has been doing good work over there and trying to take up that mantle. Edit: Michael Hastings' war coverage has also been quite good.
I think it also goes to the actual photo chosen and how they displayed it. It is true, the NYtimes used this same photo once, but mostly photos that are used of people like this are grainy or black and white, or just bad pictures. But this photo makes him really look like a rock star. It is by far the sexiest photo i have seen of Dzhaldjlakjdfl. Even if they were trying to show the split from good to bad, they could have done something like make the photo half in color and half in grainy black and white, visually illustrating the concept the article is suppose to be about. Anyway, just my thoughts.
It's thought provoking. I don't think Rolling Stone is some low brow magazine. The writing has been quite outstanding at times. When I see the cover, what comes to mind is the question they ask. How did what seemed to be a decent and well adjusted teen turn into the personification of evil.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Rolling Stone or their writers. Just that in a general sense, a magazine that routinely has pop culture individuals on their cover, versus big news stories alters the perception of the cover. When you image search their covers, 99% are pop stars. As opposed to, like I sad, Time magazine putting him on the cover, even with this picture, which I agree with GOD on the picture chosen, but I think that picture on Time magazine would feel slightly different still.
It's magazine trolling. RS doesn't care whether or not the publicity is good, they just want publicity. I'm not giving them the time of day. That's my response to their trolling.
