Suspected Boston bomber on cover of Rolling Stone magazine

The decision by Rolling Stone magazine to feature Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its August 3 cover has sparked global outrage.

au.news.yahoo.com...

Tsarnaev, who the magazine simply refers to as "The Bomber", can be seen on the cover in a self-portrait frequently circulated by media since the April 15 bombings.

The article titled 'Jahar's World' portrays Tsarnaev as a bright, charismatic and ordinary teenager who was a victim of poor circumstance.

'How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster,' the caption reads.

Almost 5,000 people have taken to Rolling Stone's Facebook page to express their outrage at the August cover.

'How f***ing dare you put a mass murderer on the cover of your magazine like making bombs in a pressure cooker and plant them in a public place to harm thousands of people is a 'rock star' thing to do. Never again will I ever buy a copy of Rolling Stone," Lindsey Williamson wrote.

'Maybe a pic of the little 8 year old boy that was killed by this piece of garbage would have made a better cover. Cancel (sic) my subscription to you (sic) publication,' wrote Tom Guerra.



Um, words fail me.

Yes this has happened.

Stunned.

I don't have a problem with it. It's a news article about him. It's not like they are glorifying him. They even called him a moster on the bottom of the cover.

People are just too sensitive these days.

I dont get the bog deal. Didnt RS have a Menendez cover story back in the day?

News is news is news and news is business and RS is in business to sell magazines.

I just think this is a little too raw. But hey, Rock Star Status now. He'll have the vote from all the girls with those fluffy locks. Pffft

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Rolling Stone magazine has a history of publishing cover art that was attention grabbing often highlighting the inspirational, the motivational, the talent as well as the controversial.

This kind of story is part of the essence of this magazine. I believe it is this type of in your face type of journalism that attract their audience.

'How f***ing dare you put a mass murderer on the cover of your magazine like making bombs in a pressure cooker and plant them in a public place to harm thousands of people is a 'rock star' thing to do. Never again will I ever buy a copy of Rolling Stone," Lindsey Williamson wrote.

I think this person as quoted above is over reacting slightly and I would not necessarily agree with her comments. I agree with the rolling stone article over her crazed condemnation.

Hmm...
I see they have an article concerning the melting of ice in the Arctic...

These are the issues; this is what they're trying to distract you from.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


So it's ok for Time, Newsweek, Salon, Vanity fair, All major newspapers in the world, etc to have his picture on their covers/front pages but it isn't ok for RS? Why not? If you haven't noticed, RS is not the mag it once was - funny, it is just like Time and Newsweek now in that it is clearly controlled by media bigs who decide what goes in and what doesn't.

CJ

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
The decision by Rolling Stone magazine to feature Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its August 3 cover has sparked global outrage.

au.news.yahoo.com...

Tsarnaev, who the magazine simply refers to as "The Bomber", can be seen on the cover in a self-portrait frequently circulated by media since the April 15 bombings.

The article titled 'Jahar's World' portrays Tsarnaev as a bright, charismatic and ordinary teenager who was a victim of poor circumstance.

'How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster,' the caption reads.

Almost 5,000 people have taken to Rolling Stone's Facebook page to express their outrage at the August cover.

'How f***ing dare you put a mass murderer on the cover of your magazine like making bombs in a pressure cooker and plant them in a public place to harm thousands of people is a 'rock star' thing to do. Never again will I ever buy a copy of Rolling Stone," Lindsey Williamson wrote.

'Maybe a pic of the little 8 year old boy that was killed by this piece of garbage would have made a better cover. Cancel (sic) my subscription to you (sic) publication,' wrote Tom Guerra.

Um, words fail me.

Yes this has happened.

Stunned.

I remember seeing a video on ATS of a psychologist on CNN describing how the worship and stardom of killers in America has created a desire for fame for potential future killers. He gave tips to news stations like, don't display the death toll, don't display pics of the killer, don't make it your top story, don't make these guys rock stars! Don't draw more unnecessary attention to the personality and life story of the killer. The story and the facts can be reported without having to do any of that extra stuff that blows up the killer's ego.

I don't mind him being on the cover. Criminals get on covers all the time. As long as the article itself doesn't glorify him or make excuses for him. As long as the article just tells the facts. Then it's fine. (I haven't read the article so I don't know if they did that or not)

Journalism.

I know some Americans here are confused about this, but you have almost NO journalism in the USA. You have propagandist media, obedient and cowering, corrupt and condescending. In order to have a healthy democratic system you need a healthy media, with healthy debates, and sometimes that means confronting difficult subjects.

Those complaining about this have a right to do so, but I deem them to be weak minded, reactionary, limited in cognitive ability and easily distracted by the wrong things.

It's also interesting to see so many being a judge and jury, before this guy has even gone to trial. While it's fair to assume that he is indeed guilty, he has a right to a fair trial and should not be deemed to be a criminal until that has been asserted through a conviction.

Originally posted by Kody27
I remember seeing a video on ATS of a psychologist on CNN describing how the worship and stardom of killers in America has created a desire for fame for potential future killers. He gave tips to news stations like, don't display the death toll, don't display pics of the killer, don't make it your top story, don't make these guys rock stars! Don't draw more unnecessary attention to the personality and life story of the killer. The story and the facts can be reported without having to do any of that extra stuff that blows up the killer's ego.

What you're describing is censorship of the media and the pressure on journalism to be nothing but a toothless dog.

If reading about people like this is encouraging it from others, why are there not millions of mass murderers out there? You know, people study criminality, there are thousands of people out there who study the psychology of serial killers, and yet they somehow manage to NOT BECOME A SERIAL KILLER!?

Someone who would be easily influenced by real journalism, or the knowledge of a killer, is already 90% there already.

The psychologist you're talking about probably received their accreditation over the internet

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Kody27
I remember seeing a video on ATS of a psychologist on CNN describing how the worship and stardom of killers in America has created a desire for fame for potential future killers. He gave tips to news stations like, don't display the death toll, don't display pics of the killer, don't make it your top story, don't make these guys rock stars! Don't draw more unnecessary attention to the personality and life story of the killer. The story and the facts can be reported without having to do any of that extra stuff that blows up the killer's ego.

What you're describing is censorship of the media and the pressure on journalism to be nothing but a toothless dog.

If reading about people like this is encouraging it from others, why are there not millions of mass murderers out there? You know, people study criminality, there are thousands of people out there who study the psychology of serial killers, and yet they somehow manage to NOT BECOME A SERIAL KILLER!?

Someone who would be easily influenced by real journalism, or the knowledge of a killer, is already 90% there already.

The psychologist you're talking about probably received their accreditation over the internet

No you're a fvcking idiot because you don't understand what I'm saying. There might be thousands of people on the verge of killing someone, but the extra little ego boosts from the news for all the other killers just might be the push that they need to actually go through with it.

The same story can be reported verbally without having to display the photo of the killer (why does it matter after he's caught already? exactly.)

I don't like it.
I won't buy it.
I won't read it....BUT
There is a thing called the 1st Amendment and I am ALL for it!!!

I'm not keen on the cover, but it does challenge the usual American perception of what terrorists look like and how they operate.



Not all threats are like these chaps, after all. The Boston events demonstrate that very clearly.

Whether that's a responsible message, I don't know. It might be scare mongering to a degree. I'd be interested to read the actual article though.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Um, words fail me.

Yes this has happened.

Stunned.

Why are you stunned? Don't all good actors make it onto Rolling Stone at some point?

"All the world's a stage." - William Shakespeare's 'As you like it'

In 2012 Obama was on the cover of TIME as 'man of the year'.

Now this guy on Rolling Stones.

Ask yourself who's responsible for more deaths the former or the latter.

Somehow Rolling Stone's doesn't look so bad anymore does it.

peace

Well, frankly, I take issue with him being a bomber at all. I think the whole story is bull puckey. How is that? And to see that picture and the bi-line on the cover of Rolling Stone gives me pause.

I always have trusted Rolling Stone as an alternative media outlet. But, they are running with the OS???

Man, has every freaking independent outlet for news been co-opted by the man??

What's next?? The Nation, OPED news, Mother Jones??? Is there any bastion of the Fourth Column left??? No, I don't think so. That is why Michael Hastings was murdered.

So you realize how f$#%@ed we are???

Originally posted by Kody27

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Kody27
I remember seeing a video on ATS of a psychologist on CNN describing how the worship and stardom of killers in America has created a desire for fame for potential future killers. He gave tips to news stations like, don't display the death toll, don't display pics of the killer, don't make it your top story, don't make these guys rock stars! Don't draw more unnecessary attention to the personality and life story of the killer. The story and the facts can be reported without having to do any of that extra stuff that blows up the killer's ego.

What you're describing is censorship of the media and the pressure on journalism to be nothing but a toothless dog.

If reading about people like this is encouraging it from others, why are there not millions of mass murderers out there? You know, people study criminality, there are thousands of people out there who study the psychology of serial killers, and yet they somehow manage to NOT BECOME A SERIAL KILLER!?

Someone who would be easily influenced by real journalism, or the knowledge of a killer, is already 90% there already.

The psychologist you're talking about probably received their accreditation over the internet

No you're a fvcking idiot because you don't understand what I'm saying. There might be thousands of people on the verge of killing someone, but the extra little ego boosts from the news for all the other killers just might be the push that they need to actually go through with it.

The same story can be reported verbally without having to display the photo of the killer (why does it matter after he's caught already? exactly.)

Manners child, manners!

Right, so a photo of someone is more likely to make someone become a murderer?

If someone is on the verge of becoming a murderer, a photo of someone in a magazine is not going to make any difference. Why should we censor ourselves and society at large to prevent some psycho from giving themselves permission for being a psycho?

I know, as there are thousands of deaths caused by guns - lets ban them all!
Smoking causes cancer - lets ban that too!
Driving results in deaths - BAN THE F'ING CARS!

If you support the idea of silencing the press to prevent someone from glorifying a murderer and emulating them, you better ban music, TV, movies, books... hell, lets do it properly and ban discussion and even THOUGHT too.

The only people guilty of murder are those committing acts of murder.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Kody27

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Kody27
I remember seeing a video on ATS of a psychologist on CNN describing how the worship and stardom of killers in America has created a desire for fame for potential future killers. He gave tips to news stations like, don't display the death toll, don't display pics of the killer, don't make it your top story, don't make these guys rock stars! Don't draw more unnecessary attention to the personality and life story of the killer. The story and the facts can be reported without having to do any of that extra stuff that blows up the killer's ego.

What you're describing is censorship of the media and the pressure on journalism to be nothing but a toothless dog.

If reading about people like this is encouraging it from others, why are there not millions of mass murderers out there? You know, people study criminality, there are thousands of people out there who study the psychology of serial killers, and yet they somehow manage to NOT BECOME A SERIAL KILLER!?

Someone who would be easily influenced by real journalism, or the knowledge of a killer, is already 90% there already.

The psychologist you're talking about probably received their accreditation over the internet

No you're a fvcking idiot because you don't understand what I'm saying. There might be thousands of people on the verge of killing someone, but the extra little ego boosts from the news for all the other killers just might be the push that they need to actually go through with it.

The same story can be reported verbally without having to display the photo of the killer (why does it matter after he's caught already? exactly.)

Manners child, manners!

Right, so a photo of someone is more likely to make someone become a murderer?

If someone is on the verge of becoming a murderer, a photo of someone in a magazine is not going to make any difference. Why should we censor ourselves and society at large to prevent some psycho from giving themselves permission for being a psycho?

I know, as there are thousands of deaths caused by guns - lets ban them all!
Smoking causes cancer - lets ban that too!
Driving results in deaths - BAN THE F'ING CARS!

If you support the idea of silencing the press to prevent someone from glorifying a murderer and emulating them, you better ban music, TV, movies, books... hell, lets do it properly and ban discussion and even THOUGHT too.

The only people guilty of murder are those committing acts of murder.

edit on 17-7-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)

No but it doesn't help.

The photo itself isn't the problem, it's the associated hype around it.

The American media turns serial killers into Rockstars.

Who hasn't heard of John Wayne Gacey? His name is practically as popular as the regular John Wayne.

Ted Bundy? Rockstar status thanks to the American media.

Timothy McVeigh? Rockstar status thanks to the American media.

Charles Manson? Rockstar status thanks to the American media.

No, censorship is not the answer, I'm not asking for censorship. I'm simply saying the American media should be doing everything to prevent the ego boost of killers.

If you can't understand that then please don't even respond.

I think it is needed.

They give Zimmerman Air time like he was the Pope, they give Arias Air time like she was the pope's daughter ( i understand that cannot happen ) but you get my point.

Maybe Rolling Stone has a reason, they want the People to keep paying attention, to not be distracted by the media's attempt to show us something to take our minds off looking at this guy more.

I mean they are talking about a triple murder now, that had drugs on the bodies and since that was the case the cops didn't interview various people who claim the brother was at the scene of the crime. Regardless what happened, it's needed attention on something I feel is more important than politicians trying to get a self defense law off the Florida Law books.

32 states have a form of Stand your ground law, If you think you should walk away from a guy with a gun, you're in bigger trouble than I could of ever imagined, you make yourself a very easy non-threatening target when you wal away from someone angry.

Let's put things another way, are you that much of a robot that you believe everything you are told? Then to look at things a 2nd or 3rd time cannot be that harmful, the issue I don't want to see if more Media coverage of a issue they try to turn into Racism, in which causes others around the USA to be Harmed from radical frustrations stemming from the media coverage.

How is this ok? And you still feel our government wants for us unicorns and rainbows?