What do you think of the "Rolling Stone" cover featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ?
 

Are they just courting controversy, feturing him, with the tag line

"How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster."

as seen on CNN .....
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/studen...html?hpt=hp_t3

http://www.fastcocreate.com/multisit...ton-bomber.jpg

Using a mad man to get mad views...nothing new. :2 cents:

:stoned

ADG

Bitches get wet for sociopaths.

You missed the word "dumb" out of that sentence.

It's a disgrace. Yet is getting the reaction and press they wanted.

that's what america's brightest journalists can come up? a story about "how a popular, blah blah was failed by his family and somehow *therefore* turned into a mad bomber?

please.

why didn't they put a picture of his smooshed and shot up brother on the cover? i know why, because this punk is generally a sharp looking kid. that's why he's on the cover, look at the cute kid. that's not a bomber.

i wonder how many retards have already made a mental note of how to get on the cover of a washed-up rag.

Sad thing is, modern media tends to lend itself to the scandal, rather than the good of the world. I'd personally rather hear about good people doing good things. I'd rather read about how a celebrity done something with their life, rather than who they fucked and ended up making a sextape with that's now free on a tube site.

But, there you go!

It's a cry for attention on Rolling Stone's part. They've got the reaction they were going for.

If he were free George Zimmerman would be dead

Very ambivalent about this. The Rolling Stone has some good journalism and this kid's story is definitely worthy of a cover story in any magazine including RS. It's upsetting because the cover of the Rolling Stone is usually reserved for pop culture icons, great artists and entertainers, and here is a fucking terrorist punk who killed innocent people and turned a city upside down getting the same treatment. Young people are shallow idiots, they're looking at him superficially as a hot/cute young guy. I hate it because if this kid had been your typical unattractive Arab looking terrorist instead of an Americanized shaggy haired lifeguard not a chance in hell the Rolling Stone puts him on the cover. It's not his story that got him the cover, it's his look and that's sad.

Che Guevara became a worldwide icon, 90% of the hippies and teenagers who have worn his image on a t-shirt have had no clue what Guevara really did.

It is a well written article and that photo is actually relevant to the point of the article. A photo of him looking like the monster they call him right there on the cover wouldn't fit it.

The reactions are just proof how how easy it is to whip people into a frenzy. The same photo has been used by other publications but a bunch of people who apparently never read Rolling Stone think it only ever writes articles about music.

Meanwhile, broadcast 'news' is a cesspool of non-journalism but the flickering images pacifies the masses.

That rag Rolling Stone mag has not been relevant for the past 20 years!

They suck and hopefully this will be the final nail in that long overdue coffin!

I think Mutt pretty much said it all

I would suggest that you pickup their magazine and give it another chance. It is extremely relevant and is more so today than it ever was.

Only people like Baddog and Robby read that magazine.

Bingo. :thumbsup

Been reading rolling stone on and off for 30+ years and I have to admit I was really disappointed in the cover, next month maybe it will be Zimmerman in blackface

Didn't know rolling stone still existed. Worthless rag.

riiiiiiiiiiiight, a worthy cover story. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

here are some other worthy cover stories for a cover pic/story

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...gle3-large.jpg

how the system failed this promising grad



or here's a good 1
http://media.salon.com/2013/03/ap_ad..._121217_wg.jpg


how video games failes this promising young man




i said it earlier, he's on the cover because he's sharp looking, mutt echoed that.



that's not mature journalism. that's not investigative journalism, that's a cheap, immature, sophmoric way to generate buzz.


and i couldn't count on 2 hands how many years i had a subscription to that shit stain rag.

here's a better cover story subject, but this would take a creative deep-thinking journalist to flesh out the story. not a job for rs these days.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...s_2537656b.jpg

what makes it even worse, they had a golden opportunity to do a truly special story. how?

the last decent article they ran, which was ~3 years ago, was the mcchrystal story, that author ended up dead in a fiery 1 car crash at 3am just a few weeks ago.


instead of doing an investigative story on one of their own, they bow to the lowest common denominator by putting a murderer on the cover. classy.



http://media.salon.com/2012/01/operators.jpg

totally agree and waiting for any mag to do an expose that Hastings was offed by some of McC's dirty deeds done dirt cheap contractor pals or snuffed to suppress a story he was currently investigating. no writer probably has the balls or the desire to risk the same fate if they uncover the truth...

Colbert said it best...

The hardest part of boycotting the magazine will be finding people who actually subscribe to magazines in the first place.

Julius....Plain and simple it's just their business model. They had Charles Mason on the cover

Here is Steven Colbert from last nights show on it..

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/t...ver-story.html

It's a good article. A modern immigrant story with a very tragic end.

I'm no right wing hardass but one big ingredient in this tragedy is the anti-American liberalism that permeates that neck of the woods and the conspiracy kooks of the Internet - they had a big part in turning those boys into the haters that could commit such a heinous act against the country that took them in and gave them what looks like hundreds of thousands of dollars to help them settle in. They couldn't make it work, and blamed their failure on others. The older brother and the mother were the kooks who bought everything they read on the Internet, the bonds of family finally wore this kid down and turned him against a country that gave him in particular more than enough opportunity at a very bright future. 90% of American kids don't get the help he got.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...world-20130717

Their magazine, their story, their "give a damn", certainly not mine.

The people who think this is some kind of serious issue are so very much more scary to me.

i jusst read the article again trying to give it an opp to reveal anything of value, i see the editors have added a comment at the beginning acknowledging the victims of the shitbag rs put on the cover and then rationalizing their decision by saying the world needs an in-depth "serious and thoughtful" coverage.

so let me get this straight, serious and thoughtful coverage is an interview of someone that does not include an interview of that person?

when did that become journalistic integrity?



a thoughtful and in-depth story that is entirely hearsay.

got it.

Rolling Stone sold out years ago. I wouldn't have wiped my ass with it before this....I wonder what Hunter S Thompson or Lester Bangs would have said about this...

I find it more upsetting that www.news.com.au is featuring an article about Justin Bieber's new tattoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/B...031/413334.jpg

Nothing like taking an armchair psychology article, and applying a conservative spin to it...so, you are blaming this religious-based terrorist action on exposure to anti-American liberalism?!? :1orglaugh

Even funnier, you are trying to equate liberalism with anti-Americanism. Conservatives like to think that by wrapping themselves in a Nationalistic flag, that this somehow makes them more pro-America than liberals, when it can be argued that it is American conservative attitudes/policies which have so many foreign nations/people angry with the US (although I realize that problems are much deeper than that, and to most foreigners, we are neither conservatives or liberals, we are all just Americans).

At least try to put a little bit of mental energy into formulating your thoughts/propaganda. :2 cents:

:stoned

ADG

BANNED in 7 Eleven's.... Great move on the editorial team LOL

RS magazine as gone to shit many moons ago. I use to buy it all the time but stopped over 7-8 years ago.

I'm confused by what you just said. In order for something to be a character study of a person they have to be interviewed themselves?

Yes because they were both about playing it safe.

We do all work in marketing right?

How many more visits to their website do you imagine there has been just by people going there to pretend to read the article? When I went to the page with the article yesterday, I was being presented by ads on the sidebar featuring Glenn Beck. Not sure about you but I am fairly certain that wouldn't normally be the case on a Rolling Stone page.

For all these people swearing 'I'll boycott buying that issue', I bet the majority of them haven't bought an issue of it in years, if ever. Yet there they go to the website.

I don't think he should have been put on the cover but I can't blame them for doing an article on him thoe.

That kid probably deserve the death penalty but in today's system he probably get 10 to life with parole in 15 years.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2zycqoy.jpg

Rolling Stone - June 15, 1970

not at all. but that's not what they did. they attempted to do a psychological profile (different from a character study) to explain a bomber, based on observations of events and 3rd party interviews of people's interpretations of him and events; all couched in some sort of "we did this so we can all understand* reasoning.

yet the article didn't really help me understand why that kid looked women and children in the eyes and laid a bomb down at their feet then unflinchingly walked away as the bomb exploded, killed and maimed.


that said, i don't really have a problem with them running that story. i don't think they should try and portray it as an expose though, it's not really. it's certainly not one of their better crafted articles, the mccrystal article will blow your mind, not just because of what it exposes, but of how well it is written. i actually started a thread here about that article i was so moved by it.

tbh, it seems to me, that the picture generated the story.

it's just a weak as a cover story imo. so many better and more compelling cover stories for them to pursue. heck, i just gave them 2 terrific story ideas just talking out of my ass in this thread! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:)

I did not go on their website and have no intention to. I am not saying boycott them as I believe in FREE Speach and could not care less about that mag... With that said, I am not surprise they are getting banned in stores since people are so sensitive nowadays.

Anyways I prefer reading inkedmag.com ;)

To me it was a character study. It showed how he was moving along in society without there being many clues to what he would end up doing. It mentioned the few times he made comments that may have even given a hint of that but then also showed by it would have been dismissed by his friends. It follows him from his younger years and then to the point where his family started to fall apart including his the events surrounding his sisters. Then, it starts to introduce why his brother became such an influence to him and the way in which his brother's views became stronger and his actions more extreme which was reflected in the transformation of his wife.

It is a 'they walk amongst us' story and that is the image they needed to use to reflect that. Do I think it is the best article ever written? No but I do think it is better than most broadcast news coverage of it, barring maybe the Frontline episode on his brother. It is certainly a stronger than last week's cover with Johnny Depp as Tonto.

There is just a lot more things to be upset about in media coverage of any variety of current issues than a magazine running a cover image that wasn't ugly enough for people. When 'they' go nuts because a Danish publication runs a drawing of Mohammad the same people that are being so vocal about boycotting and burning this magazine are up in arms about the barbaric nature of such a thing.

I wasn't speaking of you specifically.

What do you expect from a piece of shit Liberal rag? I wouldn't use that garbage of a magazine to wrap a rotten fish.

+1 for finding it in poor taste

i see what you are saying, sure, as a character study, it stands. but character studies don't really explain, they seem more to describe. which the article certainly does. again, which is fine. but it doesn't gibe with what they say they were attempting to do.

plenty of better (worse?) things to get upset about, sure. i;m more dissapoint, come on rs you can do better. seems like there are very few people that should get upset about it, i think the young 8 year old who was murdered parents are prolly in a position to be upset by it. the young man who had his legs blown off, etc.

boycotting and such is pretty silly. although the last time they tried this sort of lowest common denominator marketing (the manson cover) we didn't have full-blown social media networks that can and will influence perspectives, not sure which way this will go.

and don't even get me going re: how hollyweird is distorting the lone ranger legacy by making the movie more about johnny derp, i mean depp, wait, i mean tonto.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Well one particular article in recent memory was the one about Afghanistan a few years ago. It was called The Runaway General. Due to the information revealed in the Rolling Stone article, US Gen. Stanley McChrystal was relieved of his command by President Obama. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Don't be silly..everyone knows that liberal is just another word for commie@! :)

I got an entire year of Rolling Stone for $2.

You hate America.

And that's the scary part. :Oh crap