RollingStone crossed the line imo

[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.

[Gandalf]

GB, I have a loyalty to nobody upon this earth beyond the few that I know. It bothers me that you seem to think that I identify with the class of any underdog. I have nothing in common with this killer, with Jihad Muslims, with murderers, with anybody. I have practically given up on human beings entirely. I have no faith in humanity. I relate to nobody. I reject all faiths. I reject human beings which invade and kill nonstop for 5 centuries. I have become the thing that I feared most. Utter despair has overwhelmed me and my negativity eats away at my bones. I'm no longer much of a human being. Knowing too much has reduced me horribly. I look out my window and they haven't a clue and it is me inside chewing myself to pieces.

And you want to attack me for this? For saying a magazine can put an image of a killer on its front and be correct in doing so? In a world where mass murderers really are getting away with it. It just boggles my mind. You live in a nation of Tories and providers of murder, America much the same and you are telling me who I pick and choose is wrong? This man was no more a terrorist than the rest of these stupid people.

Stick him on the cover. So what? People died. Sure, trillions were spent on the wars and a million died. What's the issue?

Cobain killed himself. It is a bad example. It is no different to Jesus on a cross and saying to children, 'don't nail yourself to the cross, it will set a bad example'.

[Beanz]

I am not attacking you Miles. I am just disagreeing with some of your assumptions. It's very sad to have given up on human beings entirely. Humans have done a lot more than kill non-stop for centuries, but if that is what you want to focus on I can see how it would piss you off. I have another Grandson on the way any time in the next couple of weeks so I can't say that I share your despair, but you are right in pointing out that I live in a nation run by Tories. It is sunny though and the Labour party took us to war so what are you gonna do? Politicians and people in power are full of krap but most people are not such power hungry bastards. You sound like you miss community/family and are eager to write off humanity without taking part in the more joyful parts of it.

[Gandalf]

I am not attacking you Miles. I am just disagreeing with some of your assumptions. It's very sad to have given up on human beings entirely. Humans have done a lot more than kill non-stop for centuries, but if that is what you want to focus on I can see how it would piss you off. I have another Grandson on the way any time in the next couple of weeks so I can't say that I share your despair, but you are right in pointing out that I live in a nation run by Tories. It is sunny though and the Labour party took us to war so what are you gonna do? Politicians and people in power are full of krap but most people are not such power hungry bastards. You sound like you miss community/family and are eager to write off humanity without taking part in the more joyful parts of it.

100,000,000 million people lived in America prior to the invasions. 98% were wiped out.

I'm depressed because of more than this. Of course I am. I have several nieces and nephews, and good on them and I wish them well and will always support them. I have been cautious around myself and that is so others can prosper in different ways to me. I have never known family or what that means.

In terms of raising children, no. I know the realities. I live a different kind of life too. I'm happy for others to do that instead.

[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.