The longer this thread goes, the less I understand what you’re saying, Andiethewestie. Boston would have to put up with Tsarnaev no matter who wrote about him because he’s going to go on trial there. That has nothing to do with Rolling Stone, and the idea that this really does anything with regard to his fame is kind of ridiculous. Manson’s Rolling Stone cover might reflect the way people saw him - that seems like an easy case to make - but it didn’t cause everybody to see him that way.
I’m surprised how some folks, who aren’t at all offended by the RS cover, seem instead to be emotionally, and somewhat irrationally, invested in convincing people that they shouldn’t be offended.
Just trying to figure out what exactly the outrage is about.
Is it
A. The picture.
B. The forum (Rolling Stone)
C. A + B
Would it have been ok if Rolling Stone used the bloody aftermath photo?
I’m surprised how some folks who are offended by the RS cover seem to be emotionally, and somewhat irrationally, invested in convincing other people that they should also be offended.
I also think people should stop considering the photo “flattering.”. He needs a haircut and a shave. Looks pretty goofy overall.
I think he looks hotter than the hinges of Hell.
Of all the photos they picked for the cover, they chose the one that looks like it belongs on a dating/hook-up website.
Whatever sells. They could have shown the “boat pics” but that might have been offensive.
Its classic Offenderatti treatment. Wee-wee-wee let me find something stupid to be offended about that keeps the Fear going and keeps the Armalite stock prices high.
Don’t try to show that this kid could have been any kid and that maybe this could or should be a wake up call as to how people should raise their kids. Cue “Pumped Up Kicks”.
Because its the “rock start treatment” not the obvious Staples “That Was Easy” button used on how they got their guns and explosives.
“Guns don’t kill people… magazine covers kill people.”
Which “boat pics”?
Here is where someone makes an “I’m on a boat” joke and I feel even older since I haven’t heard that song.
We need to fix that.
I assume it’s this one, or one like it. There’s nothing wrong with using it but it’s not particularly interesting and it wouldn’t help tell the story they chose to tell.
You haven’t seen the boat pics? The boat pics some guy leaked. The boat the coward terrorist was hiding in when he was captured. Those pics!
Oh, the boat pics that were released after the Rolling Stone cover story was printed? Please tell me how the magazine could have used those photos.
Praise somebody! The boat pics are real.
It’s a shame Perry White wasn’t around to say stop the presses. This is a mother pupping terrorist murdered children. Let’s run a less flattening photo.
This is getting very confusing.
Oh, the boat photos are real all right. But no one (aside from the authorities) knew of their existence before this week. So how could the magazine have used the boat photos instead of the self-portrait they did use?
As I mentioned, it’s not very flattering. He looks like a douche.
As I said. That pic makes him look hotter than the hinges of Hell.
Different likes, dislikes.
Much Better Cover http://on.fb.me/12QRy8M
A very nice sentiment, but it has jack-all to do with the story. Not that we’ve had some kind of shortage of stories about the resiliency of Boston. Is the idea here that news outlets just shouldn’t write about this angle of the story because … well, the because hasn’t been defined too well, but because it’s just wrong to think about it?