As they should? What utter rubbish.
Serious discussion about an incident of public interest and one of the perpetrators and how he got to that point is not a “sick interest.”
It’s clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what kind of articles Rolling Stone publishes on matters of public interest. Rolling Stone brought down the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by revealing his discourse in professional situations.
Like what? He looks as much a monster as anyone else who has bombed people.
There’s nothing remotely sexual in the article. It doesn’t glamorize him in the slightest. He comes off as fairly sad and pathetic.
It’s not about sick interest. We would be well-served if we had a better understanding of what causes people to commit such atrocities, no?
But you know very well that people make assumptions about each other based on what we look like and we’re more likely to assume people who look good are good. If you have some time to kill, take a look at what people on the SDMB were saying about this kid when we first found out what he looked like. People were absolutely surprised the suspect looked nice, and I think people were much more willing to take responsibility away from him based on how he looks and put all the blame on the older brother.
Yeah and I’m challenging that idea because it’s asinine.
Nm
Nobody said otherwise.
I am definitely not offended, but I do think that it is in slightly poor taste. I know that magazines have to put attractive (or popular) people on their covers to sell issues, but in light of the serious subject matter, it seems cheap to me. Choosing to put a rock star looking pic of their subject, where rocks stars are usually featured seems like trolling to me. Seeing the number of people/businesses that are offended or put off by the cover, I guess their marketing people hit the target!
Fair enough. I understand the impulse too, although I think it should be challenged as perhaps too self-defeating. Refuse to humanise your enemies and you risk them rising to the challenge, as it were.
Perhaps part of the angst is that this one was really not at risk of being unfairly demonized, so it’s not much of challenge to humanize him.. He’s handsome, he’s got his crazy fan club, and he’s young and white. So if RS is trying to make an appeal for us to humanize a “monster”, they aren’t really asking the public to stretch themselves very much. They are just encouraging us to do that which seems to be many people’s natural impulse anyway. It’s provocative by being not all that provocative, and I can see why it would make people react negatively.
FYI, I haven’t read the article so I don’t even know if the writers are trying to humanize this kid. I’m just saying the issue is not as simple as saying we should love our enemies.
Not based on a recent Canadian Newsmaker of the Year.
Not love, know.
In reply to the RS cover, yesterday Massachusetts State Police photographer Sgt. Sean Murphy has released several photos from Tsarnaev’s standoff and arrest. SFW, nothing you wouldn’t see on CNN. Murphy has been suspended pending an investigation.
From the article:
Between those two incidents, Brenda Spencer shot up a school in '79 and got a song written about her, “I Don’t Like Mondays” by the Boomtown Rats. Even though that would seem to be more glamorizing and lasting than a Rolling Stone cover, she managed to fade away into history enough that most people (including you) don’t remember her.
Hunter Thompson is probably rolling in his grave (natch).
That was a really stupid thing to do. I don’t see anything particularly shocking about the photos, but it wasn’t worth losing his job over.
Rolling one, you mean? (By the way, he wasn’t buried. He was cremated and his ashes were shot out of a cannon shaped like the Gonzo fist logo.)
Thompson would have celebrated anything that could be seen as an extended middle finger to the pearl-clutching segment if society.
There were a few more than that, I think. Didn;t someone shoot up a McDonalds in the 80s? Maybe one or two in post offices?
Quick, ask me who was on the cover of RS last month!
Haven’t a clue. If people hadn’t thrown a shitfit about this one, I’d never have known about the fact that he’s on it. The act of kvetching about it gives it the attention and notoriety the kvetchers claim to be against.
I’m like TriPolar. I understand why it is offensive, even though I myself am not offended. The guy is being glamorized by being put on the cover of a magazine that mostly has glamorized photos. It doesn’t matter that they’ve run other stories before. And it’s also quite clear that they put this on the magazine specifically to piss off others to create controversy. And, no, putting a pretty picture of someone on the cover of Rolling Stone doesn’t humanize them, because, get this, most humans don’t get that treatment. Humanizing means treating people like everyone else, not treating them better. If the magazine wanted to humanize the guy, as they claim, they’d have used an image that made him look like an everyday kid. They have made sure you didn’t initially think he was a rock star before recognizing him. You know, like a legitimate news magazine would.
But what does offend me is all the people in this thread bragging and being snarky about how they can’t understand why people might be upset. You are admitting ignorance and then acting like this is a good thing! People have gone out of their way to explain why they are offended. Do you try to understand that point of view? No, you try to prove them wrong so that you can go on not understanding them.
It’s not some sort of contest.