Not offended - I don’t read that magazine anyway.
The cover of Rolling Stone is associated with certain ideas and characteristics that the front pages of The New York Times, Time magazine, The Atlantic, and other news publications are not. Words like rock star, celebrity, money, fame, power, and popularity spring to mind.
Putting a suspected terrorist on the cover immediately associates these words with him. They know this; we know this. It’s tacky and gauche.
That being said, if Rolling Stone had done it in an intelligent manner (satirically, perhaps, or playing up the “terrorist as celebrity” angle as it pertains to US politics and media), then I could see it as a smart and thought-provoking choice. Maybe that was their intent (I haven’t read the article), but it’s more likely they did it for money and buzz.
The pure greed and insensitivity of Rolling Stones publishers is quickly backfiring.
The victims of the bombing are just now being fitted with prosthetics and this magazine glamorizes the sack of shit that set off the bombs right next to kids?
The article itself is journalism and I respect that. Making the cover of Rolling Stone is an iconic Pop Culture achievement. Theres a song The Cover of Rolling Stone. They just honored this guy?
I signed the petition today. I’m done reading Rolling Stone.
attention grab…
would have preferred his brother’s headstone instead…
Doesn’t look like a rock star to me or that they tried to pose him as one.
He does look like a nice kid, shame he isn’t.
Yeah, the cover of their magazine is one of the biggest topics of discussion in the news today. That’s definitely not what they wanted!
For the record, it’s a photo he took of himself and the New York Times ran it above the fold months ago. This is a preposterous thing to get bent out of shape over.
What, are you afraid someone’s going to think, “Gee, I thought he was a no-good scoundrel but he was on the cover of Rolling Stone, you say? Huh, he must be awesome, I’ll see if I can friend him on facebook.”?
:rolleyes: There should be a law that criminals have to be ugly.
The most iconic magazine of my youth sells out and no one cares?
You didn’t make it in music and pop culture until you made the cover.
I guess Mother Earth will accept advertising from Dow Chemical next. They pay well too.
Relevant… Dr. Hook’s “Cover of The Rolling Stone.”
Lost opportunity to recycle He’s hot. He’s sexy. And he’s (as good as) dead.
This is the first thing I thought of when I saw the cover in question.
I’m not offended by either cover.
I guess I’m mistaken but I thought Rolling Stone was a magazine about MUSIC.
I’m not sure if I’m “offended”…but I’m certainly disgusted. As a runner who is currently training for a marathon, and who knows the feeling of joy and accomplishment when crossing a finish line that so many people were horrifically robbed of that day in Boston - which is the Holy Grail of running - I don’t want to see that twisted piece of shit’s picture anywhere, let alone glamourized on the cover of a famous glossy magazine.
They’ve long done in-depth political stories.
From wiki:
I don’t even understand what I’d be offended about.
Disgusted. Sickened. Another Corporate sellout.
I said it was about as offensive as a casually racist cab driver, for the reason above. I don’t have that level of visceral disgust but I can see how people close to the issue really could. And Rolling Stone knew that. I mean, c’mon.
Ah, but Manson wasn’t swarthy and good looking, instead still looking like a nutter. Tsaraev on the other hand looks like he’s on the cover to plug his latest album. Why not his mugshot? Or a victim of his act?
(Those are rhetorical questions on behalf of those finding outrage, as I’m not offended myself either beyond rolling eyes at an obvious publicity stunt - takes a lot to make me cry)
Yeah, “offended” isn’t the right word - giving someone who is probably a murdering terrorist a big cover and all this attention is not a good idea.