I think their assumptions about what Rolling Stone is and what the magazine is doing with the photo are affecting their reactions.
Hence my use of “see above” 
But a reaction based on half-informed assumptions is a lot less justified than an informed one.
Are you refering to people’s view of RS as a magazine or their reaction to the cover subject?
I agree that not knowing RS’s history makes you look silly, but a visceral reaction, by the people who live in MA, is quite defensible.
I did a Google image search to see if Newsweek had him on their cover that month, and all I can say is right-wingers really love photoshopping anti-Obama stuff on Newsweek covers. 
Honestly, though, just because someone lives in Massachusetts doesn’t mean that they were personally affected by the bombings.
They were ALOT closer to it than you! :rolleyes:
By that measure, some people in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island were closer than Bay State residents in Hampden or Berkshire Counties.
I’ve been close to a hell of a lot of things. Doesn’t mean it personally affected me. That’s borrowed outrage, man.
TIL you can get your five minutes of fame and be on the cover of Rolling Stone by being a complete and utter sociopathic loser.
Fuck everything about this asshole.
I’m not sure I’m offended. Disappointed? Sure. Disgusted that more idiots are glorifying no-good sub-human trash like that? You bet. Looks like the bomber is in a win-win: he caused the mass destruction and panic he wanted AND gets glorified and validated to boot.
But really, does any one actually give a crap about Rolling Stone Magazine or anything they have to say? Are they at all relevant anymore? Were they ever?
Six and a half pages and I’m still waiting on that explanation of how this guy was glorified by that photo.
I think most of those still carrying on won’t be able to tell you either. That’s why at this late stage some still don’t understand that Rolling Stone does put out hard hitting journalistic pieces. If they can’t be assed to read any of the thread, they just come to bitch instead.
Would you not agree that being featured on the cover of a magazine is a pretty big honor? Most stars live for that. W ould you not agree that when a musician - for example - is featured on a magazine cover they are being raised up in high esteem; glorified?
Would you like to explain how this is any different?
I’ll just leave this here:
Because he’s not a musician and isn’t being recognized for popularity or artistic achievement; he’s on a magazine cover because he’s in the news for killing people. Other killers and terrorists have gotten the same treatment. It’s not an honor, it’s a reflection of the fact that they’re in the news. Being on a magazine cover is not always an honor.
Forget it Jake, it’s Beantown.
No. Being featured on the cover of a magazine for the purposes of being honored might be a pretty big honor depending on the magazine and depending on whether the honor is a big one.
Not necessarily. See above. If a musician is being featured on the covered of a magazine, it depends on the purpose of that feature, it depends on the magazine, it depends on what the magazine is saying about that person, and it depends on whether that feature will assist sales of that musician’s work.
For example, in the early 1980s or late 1970s, there was a period in which the St. Louis Cardinals were playing very badly. Sports Illustrated ran a picture of some Cardinals players committing fielding errors with the legend Cardinal Sin. Was that honor? Was that esteem? Was that glory?
If we’re talking specifically about The Cover of Rolling Stone, and if we take “glorifying” to mean giving praise, honor, admiration, etc. to a person, then I think it’s possible for intelligent, informed people to come to the conclusion that Rolling Stone was glorifying Tsarnaev.
Month after month, 99% of the time, The Cover of Rolling Stone is reserved for stylish celebrities, photographed in such a way as to glorify them and make them “cool” in the eyes of the public. This has conditioned us to see that Rolling Stone logo, when slapped on an image, to mean: this person is glorious. Then, out of nowhere, there’s Tsarnaev.
That cover and that logo are loaded with meaning, which doesn’t go away just because Tsarnaev is on the cover. Whether or not the editors intended such meaning is irrelevant; it’s culturally/symbolically ingrained. The magazine’s history of political and news writing is also irrelevant when it comes to the cover, as it’s hardly ever reflected in the image. Either Rolling Stone doesn’t understand visual symbols and codes, and made a mistake, or they understand them perfectly, and made a calculated effort to cause controversy. I believe it was the latter.
I really don’t see how he’s been treated differently from any of these other 10 American Mass Murderers:
http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/6/6/8/1/2/webimg/520261278_tp.jpg
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1999/1101990503_400.jpg
http://wh8te.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Lubys-Massacre.jpg
http://www.kogo.com/pages/dark_side.html?article=9291107
http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/6_25_040409_shooter.jpg?w=614
http://img2.news.zing.vn/2012/09/10/12-jacksonville-fl.jpg
and one more… for the Gold:
http://www.ashvegas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/eric_robert_rudolph2013.jpg
(That last one the good people of his home community hid from authorities to thwart prosecution for years. Good thing there’s no logical correlation between The Boston Marathon and The Olympics. :rolleyes: )
People have the right to be PO’d and to be scared and to grieve. But when that grief is manipulated to create and maintain an aura of fear or to solidify the profits of some of the very companies responsible for creating the tragedy in question,
then that fear needs to be dispelled and that spin needs to be exposed. The only part of the Marathon Bomber’s story more scary than the bombing itself was that in April 18th this kid and his brother fought Watertown SWAT to a STANDSTILL
for 15 minutes of one of the hottest clip-fed firefights ever to happen on US soil. And then he then got away.
If he hadn’t hidden in that boat, he’d have been In. The. Wind.
Do people of Boston have a right to be pissed? Sure they do. But a magazine cover didn’t pour lead at the faces of those cops and what those two were using you can’t just buy at Lowes or Home Depot. At 19, without any training,
those two armed themselves to the teeth. I’m sure if you asked any of the cops dodging that hail of lead, they might admit that for these kids to be that well armed, the system is broken. For the people of Boston to be angry that
his picture has hair-product while totally ignoring and failing to provide support for changes that would stop the flow of black powder & clip-fed guns to monsters like him just means that it is broken in more than one place.
Lastly, magazines write articles that shock you to try to make you Think. A good question might be, “Who is it that has the most to gain by you Not thinking”?
[Dennis Franz] “Follow the Money.” [/Dennis Franz]