And anybody thinking “Ohhhh… I’m gonna buy one and seal it up air tight. It’s going to be a collector’s item some day worth big bucks!”
Ummm… sorry no. That’s not how valuable collector’s items come to be.
That’s the big deal. They are intentionally trying to be controversial by offending people. That’s called trolling, and people are often offended by trolls. It doesn’t matter that we know they’re trying to be offensive–that just makes it worse.
I’m not even sure why I’m not offended, to tell the truth. Maybe because I already had a pretty low opinion of Rolling Stone in the first place. Maybe because I intentionally distanced myself from this after the bombers were caught. Or maybe because I’m actually starting to get better at controlling what I get recreationally outraged about, and I know I can’t do anything about this.
Or maybe because I didn’t encounter this until this thread, where I knew to put my guard up.
That’s a little too simplistic, partly because being controversial and offending people mean the same thing. And even if that weren’t an oversimplification, a lot of people have really overreacted here. They were trying to be provocative, but despite the financial side of things, they were trying to provoke a discussion that is worth having. Trolling is just offending people for its own sake, and if you think someone is trying to make money via insincere provocation, the smart response is to ignore it.
Thank you. This monster does not deserve “rock star” treatment with a glamour shot that makes fangirls cream their jeans. And it’s a selfie to boot, perfect name, a self indulgent glamour shot, one that he tries to look fucking cool as if he’s god’s gift, instead of what he really is, a punk ass nobody.
Okay, I *understand *it. But I completely disagree.
They didn’t treat him like anything. They reprinted a widely-circulated photo.
Just like millions of other kids, which was the whole point.
Nope. MILLIONS of kids don’t get the cover. MILLIONS of kids don’t look like a Rock Star either.
They don’t get news coverage at all. This one’s a terrorist.
They didn’t do anything to make him look like a rock star. He just looks like he looks when he took the picture.
Well, sure, and someone already posted a link to a list of them. My point (such as it was) was that even with a freakin song written about her, almost no one can recall this person’s name, and in the long run that’s almost certainly going to happen to the Boston marathon bomber despite a Rolling Stone cover.
Give me a break. He didn’t look like that when they dragged him out from the boat he was hiding in or the rock he slithered out from. Now THAT would have been actual news.
Bullshit. Everyone remembers Manson, precisely because he was on the cover. He became some goddam folk hero too.
Now I get it: that’s the only way he looked ever, and every other photograph of him is invalid. Or something. I still can’t figure out what you’re argument is.
That was already in the news!
They remember him because of the shocking details of the murders, not because he was on the cover of one magazine a year after the Tate and LaBianca killings. And people would remember this guy regardless of Rolling Stone. The idea that people remember something that got a lot of news coverage because of one magazine cover is kind of infantilizing.
No there were some photos released as a response to the bullshit cover RS is running. And that photographer got in trouble for it. For criss sakes, the guy shouldn’t be given a glamour cover. He looked like some good dam homeless bleeding punk, not fucking Johnny Depp with the come hither stare.
You’re just saying that so you’ll have the only one.
Nobody looks good after they’ve been shot and lost a bunch of blood. And yes, I saw those pictures. And before that, we all saw the night vision photo of him curled up in the boat. These things are all news, but there’s no one-or-the-other in play here. The photo on the RS cover is really him, and the photos the cop shouldn’t have released are also really him.
Wait, you think Charles Manson is remembered because of the Rolling Stone cover? Perhaps you’re right; I’m too young to remember the murders, but I thought between the Beatles song, the celebrity connection and the rest, that he was remembered even without the cover photo.
I don’t think Sgt Sean Murphy agrees with most of youse.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/
Of course. His fame (or infamy) was all the result of that evil Rolling Stone cover. It had nothing to do with one of Manson’s victims being a celeb. Or the unusually gruesome nature of the murders. Or the utterfly bizarre motive (“the Beatles are sending me signals through their records to start a race war”). Or that the “killer hippie cult” image fed into the worst fears of parts of the establishment. Or that the prosecutor wrote a best-selling book about the case. Or that one of his followers later tried to assassinate the president. All that’s small potatoes compared to a Rolling Stone cover.
I understand that the point of view exists. I don’t understand why it exists, and nobody who’s posted to this thread has managed to articulate any plausible reason why they feel that way. The people protesting the “Ground Zero mosque” made more sense. They at least were able to point to the claim that it represented a victory for Islam, even if that was a stupid claim.
Being glib about the RS cover? Really now, all the shit about Manson and why he was so adored was diarized in that issue, so RS kept all the bulllshit in there as rock in roll pablum. Oh and so coool that the lyrics of Helter Skelter was all probed and shit. What a fucking waste of time. Just like this idiot Boston has to put up with.