RollingStone crossed the line imo

[IamInuit]

What they should have done given a certain cities relevance to music historically as well as being the backbone of the NA car industry given its present state of affairs was a cover featuring Detroit.

[El Kabong]

What they should have done given a certain cities relevance to music historically as well as being the backbone of the NA car industry given its present state of affairs was a cover featuring Detroit.

I'm thinking they didn't do that because an intellectually honest article on why Detroit went bankrupt would put Rolling Stone's writers, readers, etc own political views in the crosshairs and show why the policies they love are not the greatest. Detroit is a friggin sad story, it's tragic...it went from being a thriving city with the highest per capita income in the United States in 1961 to an absolute rundown shithole in a matter of 20 years and bankrupt shithole in 40 years!


The issue with the picture is that Rolling Stone intentionally chose a picture that made Dzokhar look like the lead singer of some 90's grunge band. Its a picture made to make Dzokhar look like a victim....he wasn't he made a conscious decision to do what he did and he can't suffer enough for it. I think perhaps a side-by-side of "Teen heart throb Dzokhar" and "Battered and Bloodied Terrorist Dzokhar" could have sent the message of "How did he get from being this kid to being this monster?" a little better.

[Beanz]

June 2013





MAY 2013





APRIL 2013





MARCH 2013





FEBRUARY 2013






DEC/JAN 2012/13

[Howlin Mad Missy]

did people notice the political tag lines on the cover or just look at the shiny pictures? The Stones haven't done anything worth writing about for 40+ years, except not die

June 2013





MAY 2013





APRIL 2013





MARCH 2013





FEBRUARY 2013






DEC/JAN 2012/13

[Beanz]

did people notice the political tag lines on the cover or just look at the shiny pictures? The Stones haven't done anything worth writing about for 40+ years, except not die

June 2013





MAY 2013





APRIL 2013





MARCH 2013





FEBRUARY 2013






DEC/JAN 2012/13

" No we only looked at the pictures because we are dumb and shallow " is that what you want us to say? The OP IamInuit said in his first post that he had no problem with the article itself? Have you actually read the article yet? It is a highly symbolic gesture to use such a flattering selfie shot on the cover of a magazine whose primary focus is the adulation of musical and other celebrities. It's not the New York Post, or the London Times, and never will be however much social comment it carries. The article itself refers to his appearance as though that is of any relevance whatsoever, and worst of all tries to shift the blame from the individual onto his family, which is alluded to in the tagline "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family.."

He wasn't particularly popular or promising at all and your family leaving you as an adult to go back to Russia is hardly failing you. It had it's moments of clarity, the allusion to his wanting to connect with his roots and his "jihadification"

"To me, this is classic diasporic reconstruction of identity: 'I'm a Chechen, and we're fighting for jihad, and what am I doing? Nothing.' It's not unlike the way some Irish-Americans used to link Ireland and the IRA – they'd never been to Northern Ireland in their lives, but you'd go to certain parts of Southie in Boston, and all you see are donation cans for the IRA."

That said it also had it s moments of immense and offensive stupidity

Theo, who goes to college in Vermont and is one of the few of Jahar's friends to not have any college loans, can't imagine the stress Jahar must have felt. "He had all of this stuff piled up on his shoulders, as well as college, which he's having to pay for himself. That's not easy. All of that just might make you say 'Fuck it' and give up and lose faith.
Wick Sloane, an education advocate and a local community-college professor, sees this as a widespread condition among many young immigrants who pass through his classrooms. "All of these kids are grateful to be in the United States. But it's the usual thing: Is this the land of opportunity or isn't it? When I look at what they've been through, and how they are screwed by federal policies from the moment they turn around, I don't understand why all of them aren't angrier. I'm actually kind of surprised it's taken so long for one of these kids to set off a bomb."

Symbols are everything, they are not just representative they are the whole thing. You Can carry a story about The Boston Bomber without pandering to his own, and the vanity of your readers, by putting such a soppy self shot on the cover. It's cynical and designed to create controversy and shift volume, the bottom line, make money, to pretend otherwise is the shallow option.

[Beanz]

What they should have done given a certain cities relevance to music historically as well as being the backbone of the NA car industry given its present state of affairs was a cover featuring Detroit.

You are right, Detroit Musically has gifted the world with incredibly important musicians and musical movements. It's story so inextricably linked with industry and industriousness, factories in the musical and mechanical sense and a dark underbelly of poverty and resilience that have spawned musical ecstasy and agony, something that given it's current state of declared bankruptcy, could not have been more relevant or prescient.

[El Kabong]

I actually believe Rolling Stone, its writers and editors are basking in the glow of this controversy for a few reasons

#1 They are uber left wingers and/or non-conformists and they simply get off on being controversial just for the sake of being that way not to make a point, not to inspire, not for any other reason than to stir shit up.

#2 Rolling Stone, like any other magazine is feeling the hurt...the paper mag game ain't what it once was and any kind of hype they can generate about the mag is seen as good.

[Nameless]

I actually believe Rolling Stone, its writers and editors are basking in the glow of this controversy for a few reasons

#1 They are uber left wingers and/or non-conformists and they simply get off on being controversial just for the sake of being that way not to make a point, not to inspire, not for any other reason than to stir shit up.

#2 Rolling Stone, like any other magazine is feeling the hurt...the paper mag game ain't what it once was and any kind of hype they can generate about the mag is seen as good.

I agree with what you say except for the left wingers thing; Most left wingers (like me, a moderate one however) do not agree at all with what the 2 little twats did in Boston and I am the first one to be shocked by the poor choice for their cover magazine.

[IamInuit]

I actually believe Rolling Stone, its writers and editors are basking in the glow of this controversy for a few reasons

#1 They are uber left wingers and/or non-conformists and they simply get off on being controversial just for the sake of being that way not to make a point, not to inspire, not for any other reason than to stir shit up.

#2 Rolling Stone, like any other magazine is feeling the hurt...the paper mag game ain't what it once was and any kind of hype they can generate about the mag is seen as good.

I agree with what you say except for the left wingers thing; Most left wingers (like me, a moderate one however) do not agree at all with what the 2 little twats did in Boston and I am the first one to be shocked by the poor choice for their cover magazine.

I am left of centre also and feel the same.

[El Kabong]

I actually believe Rolling Stone, its writers and editors are basking in the glow of this controversy for a few reasons

#1 They are uber left wingers and/or non-conformists and they simply get off on being controversial just for the sake of being that way not to make a point, not to inspire, not for any other reason than to stir shit up.

#2 Rolling Stone, like any other magazine is feeling the hurt...the paper mag game ain't what it once was and any kind of hype they can generate about the mag is seen as good.

I agree with what you say except for the left wingers thing; Most left wingers (like me, a moderate one however) do not agree at all with what the 2 little twats did in Boston and I am the first one to be shocked by the poor choice for their cover magazine.

I am left of centre also and feel the same.

Yes but those writers are MILITANT in their views. Not that they preach violence but it's as if no view other than theirs has a right to exist let alone be debated.

[Gandalf]

It doesn't sound all that different to someone on here then.

I don't understand the reaction. It's an image of the guy and apparently that is what he genuinely looked like. People who kill can look cuddly and people who would never headbutt a cat can look terrifying. It is no different to Norman Bates. Can a complete lunatic not have a charming side and eat sweets too? That is where the media is going silly. Read the article, it is a good one.

Obama can smile for the cameras and say nice things, but the man is a mass murderer too. Where is the outcry about Obama on that basis? It's the same thing, except Obama tells others to pull the trigger. Yay Obama, you got Bin Laden and drone Pakistan and hunt people who tell the truth. He smiles and the media gets sympathetic about Obama 'opening up' about race. Just sycophantic and drooling and Rolling Stone is the bad guy? Pull the other one.

[IamInuit]

I actually believe Rolling Stone, its writers and editors are basking in the glow of this controversy for a few reasons

#1 They are uber left wingers and/or non-conformists and they simply get off on being controversial just for the sake of being that way not to make a point, not to inspire, not for any other reason than to stir shit up.

#2 Rolling Stone, like any other magazine is feeling the hurt...the paper mag game ain't what it once was and any kind of hype they can generate about the mag is seen as good.

I agree with what you say except for the left wingers thing; Most left wingers (like me, a moderate one however) do not agree at all with what the 2 little twats did in Boston and I am the first one to be shocked by the poor choice for their cover magazine.

I am left of centre also and feel the same.

Yes but those writers are MILITANT in their views. Not that they preach violence but it's as if no view other than theirs has a right to exist let alone be debated.

Again I just think the whole depiction was wrong regardless of the desired effect and seeing as the desired effect was copy sales that even makes it worse. I like Bill Maher and was eager to see how he approached it last night and he was a dick that lost the plot.