Suspected Boston bomber on cover of Rolling Stone magazine

Dr. Hook - anyone?

Im not happy with RS over their topic choice.To me,this guy and his brother was allowed to study here and repaid their hosts by blowing its innocent civilians up and possibly murdered others in another homicide.

Originally posted by Kody27
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.

Have you read the article before anyone else? How can you possibly say that this is glorifying anything?

You've seen the cover, and you've immediately gone into knee-jerk attack mode, criticizing the FREE PRESS of "promoting" murderers to rock star status.

I haven't seen a hundred people emulating Manson, McVeigh, Bundy or Gacey and murdering people. If you have, please offer some examples of the many people who have been killed as a result of the media "promoting" these killers...

There are some sick people in the world who emulate killers, that's a fact that gagging the media will not change.

No one has glamorized Hitler, yet there are hundreds of thousands of neo-Nazis in the world who idolize him. Can you explain how the media has glamorized him and promoted him, and how those who have acted violently have been persuaded to do so by the media coverage?

Your argument holds no water. It's not based in fact and logic, it's based in a biased opinion about a magazine cover that you personally don't like.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Kody27
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.

Have you read the article before anyone else? How can you possibly say that this is glorifying anything?

You've seen the cover, and you've immediately gone into knee-jerk attack mode, criticizing the FREE PRESS of "promoting" murderers to rock star status.

I haven't seen a hundred people emulating Manson, McVeigh, Bundy or Gacey and murdering people. If you have, please offer some examples of the many people who have been killed as a result of the media "promoting" these killers...

There are some sick people in the world who emulate killers, that's a fact that gagging the media will not change.

No one has glamorized Hitler, yet there are hundreds of thousands of neo-Nazis in the world who idolize him. Can you explain how the media has glamorized him and promoted him, and how those who have acted violently have been persuaded to do so by the media coverage?

Your argument holds no water. It's not based in fact and logic, it's based in a biased opinion about a magazine cover that you personally don't like.

Who says it has to be hundreds of inspired killers for it to matter? If one person wanted to be remembered for their killing legacy, that would be one too many.
You're an idiot if you think it's ok to promote killers in the media.

Hitler was definitely immortalized by the media, I don't know what world you're living in.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

It's interesting to me. There're studies that show handsome or pretty people tend to be seen as smart and good even though they might be dumb and evil. I immediately thought of this when I saw a news clip on youtube about the boston bomber. It was covering the movement by some girls (read: fans) who believe he's innocent. Obviously, it's not a mystery why this is happening. Some teenage girls are seeing what they think is a handsome young man and they instantly react and they cannot believe he's a bad person. The studies that have been done prove it's a real effect.

Don't believe me?

Here's a start:
en.wikipedia.org - Physical attractiveness stereotype...
www.psycholog ytoday.com - "I'm Successful Because I'm Beautiful" — How We Discriminate in Favor of Attractive People...

The ugly girl on the cover of that magazine has lots of facial hair.

Free speech. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it don't.

reply to post by Rocker2013

I have to mostly agree with you, but I think there're other motives here. They didn't just print his face on their cover randomly. Why didn't they show a picture of the carnage instead? They could have shown a picture that was more neutral. IMHO, they're trying to portray him as a misguided youth. Why else would they show a "self-portrait" of him? Why not show him after he was arrested? It wouldn't show him in such a pleasant light. The cover makes him look almost normal.

Think about that. They're trying to say he's "almost" normal. He's just a boy that got caught up in islam and was letdown by his family. We should feel sorry for him.....

So while I agree they have the freedom to do this, I have the freedom to not buy their magazine.

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

What?

Poor circumstance?

How about POOR CHOICES ?

Hey, think I will go blow up a bunch of people is a CHOICE, and idiotic one.

Rolling Stone lives up to it's name, not much upstairs in the brain department pretty much like a stone.

So this guy has been convicted then?

I think it's a brilliant cover concept that draws stark attention to the issue -- someone who looks happy, reasonably good-looking, and perhaps even personable in his body-language somehow got drawn in a direction none could imagine based on appearances.

It's brilliant.

And the right decision from an editorial perspective. By all accounts this guy was 'turned' whether by brother or fundamentalist preaching. The story is designed to spark dialogue and the picture is a powerful pull. He looks like the archetype student, looks and an all-American cut about him. What could have gone wrong? That is the thinking behind the front-page image.

On another note, a number of ATS members went more than tin-foil loopy over the Boston marathon bombers and those about to judge this image from a gut reaction should step back and understand the wider dialogue attempted by the magazine. The Rolling Stone has a pedigree of good, sound journalism that is designed to stir emotion and provoke thought.

I will add that anyone thinking this cover image is designed to 'glorify' him then you are a complete fool and need to understand some basic principles of journalism.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

I have to mostly agree with you, but I think there're other motives here. They didn't just print his face on their cover randomly. Why didn't they show a picture of the carnage instead? They could have shown a picture that was more neutral. IMHO, they're trying to portray him as a misguided youth. Why else would they show a "self-portrait" of him? Why not show him after he was arrested? It wouldn't show him in such a pleasant light. The cover makes him look almost normal.

Think about that. They're trying to say he's "almost" normal. He's just a boy that got caught up in islam and was letdown by his family. We should feel sorry for him.....

So while I agree they have the freedom to do this, I have the freedom to not buy their magazine.

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

The story is about him, how he became radicalized, how he was once a promising young student and how his friends STILL cannot understand how he became this monster.

That is why he is on the cover, the story is not about the events of that day nor the victims of the attack, it's about him and what must have been going on in his mind to make him do what he did.

Like it or not, there is more than one side to this story. I know people are emotive and lashing out, but it's actually pretty shocking to the see the mass American public attacking journalism as they are.

Of course you have the freedom to not buy it
That's not the debate here.

The debate is about journalism, how people are attacking it when it causes them to ask hard questions, or when they feel social pressure to do so.

IT'S JUST A F'ING MAGAZINE COVER!

I've been reading the completely irrational and emotive rubbish on Twitter, and I have to say that America is indeed doomed. People are attacking journalism, supporting a propaganda press, following an emotive mob and joining in the mass attack on the media.

America is seemingly full of ignorant fools who don't understand what JOURNALISM is.

I wonder if they can get sued for saying 'the bomber' instead of 'the alleged bomber'???
I'd think ... probably.

At the very basic level, Rolling Stone can put anything they want on their cover. They could have put him on a flying unicorn if they wanted to convey the message they wanted.

Covers are suppose to grab your attention and this thread is evidence that it has worked flawlessly.

Originally posted by intrepid
So this guy has been convicted then?

Reading this thread I think many have made up their mind that he is guilty..despite pleading not guilty.
What happened to innocent before proven guilty eh?

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Originally posted by intrepid
So this guy has been convicted then?

Reading this thread I think many have made up their mind that he is guilty..despite pleading not guilty.
What happened to innocent before proven guilty eh?

That only applies to Zimmerman.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Exactly my thoughts. Everyone is so quick to judge these days. Who needs proof of anything when the media tells you everything you need to hear.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


I agree with you on this and I don't see how anyone could argue in favor of the cover.

The guy is a TERRORIST people he is partly responsible for killing a CHILD and yet he gets a brooding, moody, Teenbeat-esqe cover as if he is the next break out Twilight star. WTF Rolling Stones, shame on you. Why not his mugshot, or at the very least MONSTER written across the cover instead of in tiny letters on the bottom corner.

reply to post by brandiwine14


Because he has not been convicted of anything yet.....why have you branded him a terrorist before he has been convicted of being one.
Just to point out it all stinks to me, the whole case is fishy.

Also Rolling stone once put Charles Manson on the front page also...I bet they sold a ton more copies.