RollingStone crossed the line imo

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.