Not quite.
That’s a really good question; is there a point to everyone learning the name and face of someone who did a heinous thing, and will either spend the rest of his days in jail or be put to death?
Exactly.
From that site it looks to me like school shootings have increased dramatically in the last, say, 20 years. Is that because young people are going crazy more, or is it because they have a platform for infamy (like getting their picture on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine)?
This, exactly. I think the cover makes a great point. He’s a good looking kid–just like a LOT of good looking kids…what the hell happened? I hope the article addresses that.
Look again. If you notice, a lot of those are single person shootings. In years past, those weren’t counted as “school shootings” but “murders that took place on school property.” The terminology changed, so it looks like more are happening today.
Well dang. I just stopped at three places that sell magazines and couldn’t find a copy: Walmart, grocery store, gas station.
I’ll check the drug store tomorrow; I know they actually carry RS, but I’m not sure about the others. Was Walmart one of the places that said they were not going to carry this copy?
7-Eleven isn’t selling the August RS either. That’s at least 7 retail chains.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/7-eleven-joins-boycott-controversial-rolling-stone-boston-bomber-issue-article-1.1402590
Not in the least.
Guess not.
The CNN link says it doesn’t hit newsstands until August 3.
ETA: And now I can’t find it on CNN. But I know the issue isn’t out yet. The most current one is with Johnny Depp as Tonto on the cover.
:smack:
[Johnny Carson]I did not know that.[/JC]
I remember in 1979 Time Magazine named Ayatollah Khomeini Man of the Year. It was controversial at the time (although I don’t remember boycotts). But Time’s Man of the Year was supposed to be the person who, for better or worse, most affected the news that year. I suppose that the phrase “man of the year” might have confused people, as it sounds like an honor from the local fraternal order. “Newsmaker of the Year” might have been less controversial and more gender-neutral.
Right. Does the Rolling Stone cover imply that they love the guy and think he’s peachy?
And of course that’s why Time’s Person of the Year for 2001 was Rudy Giuliani for his response to the September 11th terrorist attacks and not anybody who was involved in the planning or execution of the same attacks. That bothered me more than this magazine cover does because it was so patronizing.
I have no problem with the cover, but when I try to imagine the magazine staring me in the face from my coffee table, I feel very uncomfortable. Monsters really are not supposed to look like that.
What if the monster looks like a decorated Canadian military base commander?
Hard to swallow too.
Hitler, Stalin, and Khrushchev all were named Man of the Year by Time as well.
Sure, but I wasn’t alive for any of those years.
Some of those fangirls are now going to be looked at real close by the authorities, as they should. However, why keep stirring up a sick interested in this monster?
And I don’t have to read it, it’s the same slop trotted out when Paul Bernardo or Ted Bundy were on trial. You get really strange morbid sexual fascination from certain circles. Big deal. A broken record. Nothing new. Move on, a rag like RS should know better and stop sexualizing monsters.
Doubtful- and they really shouldn’t.
You’ve already acknowledged that this was going on before RS ran this photo (because the photo has been available to everyone for months). And there;s nothing sexual about the photo. So how did they sexualize him?
So what was that about the expense of a trial?