RollingStone crossed the line imo

[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.

[IamInuit]

They should have tried this cover.

[Gandalf]

They could do that, but the problem is that the young boy was probably like most young children and it would be hard for Rolling Stone to give that several pages. I think it is right that Rolling Stone gets criticised for its musical coverage and choice of covers, but politically they are really very good at times. Rolling Stone presents a portrait of how someone that seemed relatively normal turned over to a very dark side and I fail to see how that is not an interesting and insightful story and that is far more important than the cover. Most people looking at the cover wouldn't have given it a second thought have the mainstream media not blown it up into a big issue. Now still nobody has read the article and fanciful notions will have been provoked.

Kurt Cobain blew his own brains out thus potentially inviting copycats, maybe he should be banned from magazine covers too, and of course the media should never show photos of US Presidents who are responsible for the deaths of millions, or of Michael Jackson and his ever evolving face and love of little boys etc etc. It's a lot of double standards.

It's an insult to suggest that a photo could create terrorists and yet the foreign policies largely get swept under the rug. That is the real issue. If we are going to talk about victims, then also you have to extend it beyond the tiny numbers of American victims in the greater war on terror. I consider that equally worthy and perhaps moreso as I don't understand what Iraq had to do with 'terror' as the British government was advertising it. The faces of Blair and Bush create terrorists, this guy is next to nothing in the great scheme of things.

A tiny bit of it came home and the killers face is on a magazine. Is that really the big concern in the so called 'War on terror'? It's an interesting diversion, but in the great scheme of things, extremely small fry.

[Beanz]

They could do that, but the problem is that the young boy was probably like most young children and it would be hard for Rolling Stone to give that several pages. I think it is right that Rolling Stone gets criticised for its musical coverage and choice of covers, but politically they are really very good at times. Rolling Stone presents a portrait of how someone that seemed relatively normal turned over to a very dark side and I fail to see how that is not an interesting and insightful story and that is far more important than the cover. Most people looking at the cover wouldn't have given it a second thought have the mainstream media not blown it up into a big issue. Now still nobody has read the article and fanciful notions will have been provoked.

Kurt Cobain blew his own brains out thus potentially inviting copycats, maybe he should be banned from magazine covers too, and of course the media should never show photos of US Presidents who are responsible for the deaths of millions, or of Michael Jackson and his ever evolving face and love of little boys etc etc. It's a lot of double standards.

It's an insult to suggest that a photo could create terrorists and yet the foreign policies largely get swept under the rug. That is the real issue. If we are going to talk about victims, then also you have to extend it beyond the tiny numbers of American victims in the greater war on terror. I consider that equally worthy and perhaps moreso as I don't understand what Iraq had to do with 'terror' as the British government was advertising it. The faces of Blair and Bush create terrorists, this guy is next to nothing in the great scheme of things.

A tiny bit of it came home and the killers face is on a magazine. Is that really the big concern in the so called 'War on terror'? It's an interesting diversion, but in the great scheme of things, extremely small fry.

Why do you assume nobody has read the article ? The OP has read the article and said so. Many other posters here will be regular readers of RS ? It is an insult to suggest that a photograph could create terrorists but it is you and you alone who made that suggestion. Of course people would have looked at the cover and given it a second thought. You seem to portray yourself as an egalitarian whilst not even extending the most basic of courtesies and respect to other people. It offended the OP who like you ( and correct me if I am wrong @IamInuit ) can see the gaping holes and double standards exposed by a "war on terror" , but who nonetheless could be rational enough to see the cynicism of RS with it's poor editorial choices when it came to selecting images for it's cover. Kurt Cobain was a musician, evidently in a lot of physical and mental pain, who chose to turn a gun on himself, that is not the same thing and nobody is suggesting that glamorising or demonising a terrorist is going to produce copycats, (although it may). The issue is one of taste and common decency, it is trite and insensitive.

If you are truly concerned about the victims of violence you don't get to pick and choose those who deserve your empathy because of some misguided sense of loyalty to an underdog class that you have very little understanding of. This young man does not represent the victims of bombings in Iraq, no more than he represents the Chechen Muslims that are killing their brothers, or the Kurds who without the Iraq war would have been murdered in their thousands. He was ill educated, deluded and brainwashed, but the decision to turn his frustrations into violence, that he visited on innocent civilians, is his alone and one that he should bear the consequences for without the Rock Press profiting of his notoriety. Carry the story but put Jay-Z or Willie Nelson on the cover.

[Onetime]

They should have tried this cover.

I'd say yeah but no one reports on all the kids the USA killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, I'm finding it hard to find outrage when Obama has killed more kids by ordering drone strikes.

[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.

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.

Guys like Maher irk me because you fucking know he's more intelligent than he comes across after spouting a bunch of intellectually dishonest crap!