Originally Posted by Sarah_Jayne (Post 19723230)

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.

Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 19722309)

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.

Originally Posted by JockoHomo (Post 19722323)

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

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 19722961)

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

Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 19723325)

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

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19722291)

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

Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 19722309)

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.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19722291)

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.

Originally Posted by Sarah_Jayne (Post 19723101)

Yes because they were both about playing it safe.

Originally Posted by GonZo (Post 19723448)

You should read more...

Hunter Thompson was known for not playing it safe... kinda like Larry Flynt?

Originally Posted by pornsprite (Post 19723474)

I don't think very many people have a problem with RS running the story about this young terrorist. We all need to understand or have some understanding why someone with a promising future in this Country could become such a evil spirited person in such a short time and attack the place that has been so good to them.

I have not read the article. I will not read the article. I have not surfed over to their site and I will not put a link to their site on any forums. I will not write their name on any article or post. I will not do anything that think will aid them now or in future.

That piece of poo being on the cover is troubling to many us and I hope this is the nail that seals the coffin of RS by people pulling their subscriptions. I believe in free speech but I also believe everyone that has a problem with him being on the cover has the right to pull their subscriptions in protest.

I won't be making 10 post here trying to reassure myself that I am taking the right stance on this issue. Go Fuck Yourself.

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19723426)

Have you seen the t-shirts with Tsarnaev's photo yet?

Originally Posted by noshit (Post 19723526)

Are you upset that they put the Boston Bomber on the cover of Rolling Stone?

Well I love to break it to you that the whole thing was fake, and your puny tirade is worse than wrong in the grand spectrum of time.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19723540)

who's on the cover then?

Originally Posted by noshit (Post 19723571)

I suppose I could have put 'Government Patsie' instead of boston bomber like RS did for those that can't contextually read a whole post. But you're smarter than that.

Originally Posted by noshit (Post 19723571)

I suppose I could have put 'Government Patsie' instead of boston bomber like RS did for those that can't contextually read a whole post. But you're smarter than that.

Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 19723585)

world is seriously doomed - between the powers that be, liberals, and crackpots like you there's really not much hope. a perfect storm is gathering.

Originally Posted by noshit (Post 19723593)

Join the force. You'll be on the winning team :thumbsup

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 19723672)

http://cdn.bostonmagazine.com/wp-con...3_4510A_21.jpg



UPDATE: Photographer Relieved of Duty for Releasing Above Photo



:stoned

ADG

Originally Posted by Sarah_Jayne (Post 19723453)

Gonzo, I would have thought that you of all people would be able to detect sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Socks (Post 19723825)

So we're mad when journalists tell a story to suit their purpose, and then we're also mad when they release something that tells a story in a way that we don't want it told...

I thought we were about free speech around here? Only when it suits I suppose. :Oh crap

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ - (Post 19723673)

The bloody pic is only going to turn girls on more.
Female sexuality is a dark place.

Originally Posted by Jman (Post 19723978)

Any american chick who gets turned on by this pic had REALLY bad parenting and no love at all.