Yeah, and the fangirls are mobilizing to get this “pretty boy” off. Great stuff, way to push the visual crack. RS.
I don’t know. If not using the names was standard procedure through out the media, would we remember names like John Wayne Gacy? Personally, I don’t think it would be such a horrible thing if we didn’t. Small victories and all that. [shrugs]
And “Stalinist style revisionism” comparison is silly.
I’m sure that’ll be really effective.
It will turn an open and shut case into a fucking circus, just like the Manson case.
I’m sure the prosecutors are really worried about 15 year olds taping the RS cover to the wall by their bed.
No, it won’t. The federal government is going to prosecute the guy for terrorism and it’s an open and shut case with a confession. It doesn’t matter what some dumb kids say. And however much a circus his trial might’ve been, Manson is serving a life sentence and just about everyone connected to him is doing the same.
I’ve got news for you; the moment he was captured we were guaranteed a fucking circus.
That being said, it’s really not that hard to avoid them. I completely missed the Arias drama, for example. I mean, just don’t turn on HLN and you’re like 65% of the way there.
Boycotts are the traditional way consumers can peacefully voice displeasure with a company or publisher. This is a little different because five major chains won’t be selling this issue of RS. Theres also a national boycott that social media is pushing.
RS will still makes gobs of money exploiting this story. But at least some Americans can send them a message that not everyone approves of putting a terrorist/mass murderer on The Cover of The Rolling Stone.
The message that large numbers if people are idiots.
You misunderstand me. I mean why are they displeased? You can’t be telling me the people complaining that the picture is too pretty are serious.
People who did horrible things and their names should be remembered.
The concept of deleting bad people from the public memory is creepy, and yes, the comparison to Stalinism is appropriate. Not that it’s feasible anyway since we’ve been memorializing killers and creepy in story and song for as long as those media have existed. All you can really do is punish or ostracize people who mention the forbidden names, which is stupid and (again) creepy.
If you do a big story on an infamous person, it stands to reason their photo would be on the cover. Second, this was a photo that was already available and had been used by other publications, including the New York Times. It’s not as if they had sent a photo crew and make-up artist to pretty him up and shoot a photo specifically for this cover. I think it also supports the journalistic premise stated on the cover–how did this guy who was once a nice kid end up as a murderer?
Based on the cover only, I don’t think he’s glorified in any way, though I haven’t read the article.
The acts yes, the names no.
Creepy? That’s a rather strange adjective to use. Also, I’m not proposing it should be a law that we don’t use their names. So no, Stalinism isn’t appropriate.
Of course they are. I’ve also gotten a nice helping of, “You’re not from Boston, you wouldn’t understand.” on my Facebook feed. And they’re right, I’m not from Boston, but how does your physical location make a news article in a news magazine “offensive”?
Well, fuck me.
Great, now I have to boycott those five chains for their stupidity.
I don’t think it is. Why should we pretend we don’t know who committed a crime?
Nobody thought you were proposing a law (and I’m not sure Stalin needed laws to accomplish this), so that’s not the point. The point is the concept of pretending to erase someone’s existence as a show of disapproval- as if prison or execution didn’t already send that message pretty clearly.
Can anyone point me to a list of retailers that boycotted TIME Magazine because they retouched Stalin’s Man of the Year photo?
