(re: Rolling Stone bans) Is there no limit to our national outrage-addiction?

[thucythucy]

133. Maybe not putting him on the cover at all?

Let's be clear, I'm not advocating censorship, and generally enjoy Rolling Stone (have a subscription) and think Matt Taibbi's work on banksters and RS's other investigative work is great stuff, stories that very definitely need to be told. And for all I know, this article may be just as good (haven't checked my mail yet).

BUT, I do have a problem with how we tend to turn people who commit the most awful atrocities into instant celebrities, "rock stars," if you will. We live in a culture in which celebrity and fame are hugely important commodities, and some people commit the crimes they do largely because they want to be famous, by any means necessary. I'm thinking, for instance, of the asshole who shot John Lennon (whose name I refuse to type). Putting this alleged bomber on the cover of a major magazine which is primarily seen as a purveyor of pop culture seems to be a part of that trend.

And BTW, since there hasn't yet been a trial or conviction, and last I heard this guy is pleading "not guilty," shouldn't any headline or magazine cover with the word "BOMBER" so prominently featured also feature the word "alleged"?

Isn't it odd that the civil libertarians amongst us haven't made that point, as yet?