General Discussion

MADem

(135,425 posts)

145. You're avoiding the key point I made because you know I'm telling the truth.

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:32 AM

Jul 2013

Do the math -- you're talking about 1972....and you're not understanding that "kids today" don't give a shit about that ancient history. That was OVER FORTY YEARS AGO.

The purpose of that cover was to try to draw "kids today" into the geezer readership of RS, because otherwise they won't survive and they know it. It was an appeal to the "Jahar cultists" as well as idiots who fancy themselves to be "fight the power" activists against the Pee Tee Bee, who are being played by a rich old man who owns a few magazines and knows how to move 'em--he's like PT Barnum, he knows there's one born every minute who will buy the tripe he's selling.

The covers in recent decades--not back in the days when their supposed "teen readership" wasn't even a gleam in their daddys' eyes--have been, by and large, CELEBRITIES. Musicians, prettily posed, with flowing hair and perfect teeth displaying cheery smiles. Movie stars, sometimes ones who PLAY musicians on film. All professionally photographed, with "dreamy" effects to make them look their best.

Don't give me ancient books, and don't give me articles as "justifications" for that shit cover. Playboy and other "nudie" mags had some "good journalism" too, but you never saw a picture of a murderer on their cover, now, did you?

People go to Rolling Stone for their core product--music and the music industry. Their occasional "serious reporting" articles are add-ons, designed to draw in a cadre of people in the hopes that they will read and stay. But that's not what the mag is about, that's just a sideline, a way of having a hand in so they can stay relevant with the hip/cool/political segment that also reads their publication. That's why their jazzy McChrystal article by the late Michael Hastings didn't have the General on the cover...it had Lady Gaga in a thong on the cover. And that's because--when they aren't trying to sell shock covers to suckers who defend this cravenly corporatist move--they know what their market is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

152 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(re: Rolling Stone bans) Is there no limit to our national outrage-addiction? [View all] cthulu2016 Jul 2013 OP

Oh that's just great. tblue Jul 2013 #1

Is that photo 'sexied up?' Whisp Jul 2013 #7

So, even if you put on the front cover "Became a Monster" Rex Jul 2013 #2

I thought it was effective. At a glance you ask who this cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #4

Same here, that was my first impression too...is it wrong? Rex Jul 2013 #8

thinking is frowned upon anymore.. frylock Jul 2013 #40

Here comes Honey Boo Boo! Rex Jul 2013 #41

go AWAY! frylock Jul 2013 #42

LOL! Rex Jul 2013 #47

True, but if Lawernce O'Odonnell was accurate the article fails to karynnj Jul 2013 #89

Agree, my take on the picture too. Plus, if the world can discuss Trayvon's hoodie and whether txwhitedove Jul 2013 #43

Which basically says anyone can turn into a monster... WCGreen Jul 2013 #151

Magazine stands have opted to not to stock certain issues karynnj Jul 2013 #88

I remember that some refused to sell Rolling Stone when Elton John came out. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #93

The subhead is what sucks BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #3

Yeah, that passive voice does come off a bit tone deaf. (pun intended) n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #23

Lol, what does "blood on the floor" mean? Dramatic much? n-t Logical Jul 2013 #57

Yeah, well, I hate what they did here BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #63

Well, I do not think O'Donnell is always right. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #98

There's exactly one reason that fucker is on the cover Dreamer Tatum Jul 2013 #5

If he had pimples, bad teeth and crossed eyes...he wouldn't even make the inside pages. nt MADem Jul 2013 #53

Like Charles Manson progressoid Jul 2013 #96

Gee, he's not in a reposed, relaxed, softly lit, "staring directly into the camera, dreamy-eyed" MADem Jul 2013 #121

Jesus, there is nothing wrong with that cover quinnox Jul 2013 #6

I agree get the red out Jul 2013 #10

It's online now. gvstn Jul 2013 #16

cool thanks, bookmarking to read later quinnox Jul 2013 #19

The article doesn't mention Tamerlan's connection to the FBI temmer Jul 2013 #49

Interesting take. gvstn Jul 2013 #71

As far as its question, my thought is: we aint seen nothing yet NoOneMan Jul 2013 #9

Yup. I kinda feel like someone realized along that way that enough outrage... Pholus Jul 2013 #11

people are dead set to see themselves as victims of EVERYTHING datasuspect Jul 2013 #12

The outrage doesn't seem ... GeorgeGist Jul 2013 #13

well done cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #14

The subtext is that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a victim. MicaelS Jul 2013 #15

Well, there's outrage and then there's..... graywarrior Jul 2013 #17

Works for me. MADem Jul 2013 #52

Thanks for that. I just read that they wanted to depict a sheep in wolf's clothing effect. graywarrior Jul 2013 #70

This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Jul 2013 #95

They pissed off a statie big time. MADem Jul 2013 #150

They put him on a one day leave graywarrior Jul 2013 #152

Most of the outrage is quite genuine and is centered in New England KamaAina Jul 2013 #18

But there was no outrage when the same photo was on the front page of the New York Times? Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #38

Mid-July is a much slower news period cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #48

I've been asking the same thing and getting the same refusal to respond Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #103

The American people lost their minds and their balls after 9/11 whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #20

I've discussed this with friends from Boston who are sincerely upset, but I don't see it myself onenote Jul 2013 #21

I don't see how a headline that describes someone as "Fell into Radical Islam and became a Monster" Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #22

I agree, but I think we've become an image-driven culture deutsey Jul 2013 #135

I dunno, if someone did a soft porn cover of bin laden on a magazine geek tragedy Jul 2013 #24

Soft porn cover? whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #28

Glamourous, dreamy shot of him. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #29

So let me get this straight... whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #31

I don't really care. I'm just saying that for people who were traumatized by this guy's actions, geek tragedy Jul 2013 #32

Idiotic. whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #33

I'm trying to be empathetic for people who got traumatized by this. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #34

Don't care, but just had to yap something dumb? whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #35

You may think that crude belligerence makes you witty. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #36

Same photo was the NY Times Page One above the fold on May 5, 2013 Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #74

As someone who's not offended, I really can't answer. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #78

That's a convenient change of mounts. You called the photo 'soft porn' upthread. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #94

Soft porn doesn't offend me. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #97

Here is your quote that started this subtread: Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #104

In a different context, yes. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #105

Cake and Eat It Too arguments are the defining tactic of those in the wrong... Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #109

Oy. I said it would if it were bin Laden. Subjunctive mood. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #110

Cake. Also eat the cake. Have it, eat it. Cake. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #116

Zzz. You must be really bored to pick a fight over this. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #117

A free and open press matters to me. This bothers you. So you pick the fight. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #139

A rather grandiose explanation for a petty blog spat. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #140

a lot of folks are saying it's because it's rolling stone. had it been a 'news' magazine ejpoeta Jul 2013 #80

It is generally regarded as an HONOR to be pictured on that magazine. MADem Jul 2013 #106

That's absurd. Manson, Nixon, Police with Batons beating protesters Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #115

Look who you're naming--Manson, Nixon, Police With Batons--you're going back over a generation. MADem Jul 2013 #124

Pot, Meet Kettle! ProfessorGAC Jul 2013 #76

That, to you, is a glamorous, dreamy shot? Gravitycollapse Jul 2013 #149

Meh, I don't get the outrage, either. X_Digger Jul 2013 #25

Too pretty to be a terrorist whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #26

Wasnt that same pic on the front page of the Times? bunnies Jul 2013 #27

Getting outraged at people that are outraged is outrageous. nt AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #30

So when an Islamic terrorist is somehow deemed to be "too good-looking", Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #37

Maybe not putting him on the cover at all? thucythucy Jul 2013 #133

I'm OUTRAGED! warrprayer Jul 2013 #39

I'm outraged that you posted a cover by such a sucky band. Warren DeMontague Jul 2013 #46

Agree -totally lame and pretty Poison boys= nothing to do with what the song is about IMO lunasun Jul 2013 #84

I agree, but tazkcmo Jul 2013 #134

I'm outraged you dissed Dr. Hook with an 80"s hair band. nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #141

he became a monster by choice. Warren DeMontague Jul 2013 #44

It's all fauxrage. Apophis Jul 2013 #45

It's the content too. discopants Jul 2013 #50

+1 nt MADem Jul 2013 #54

Thanks for the link...total embarrassment for Rolling Stone BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #55

The hip owner of Rolling Stone is also the UNHIP owner of US WEEKLY. MADem Jul 2013 #100

Yes, the publisher should pose in front of his own Mission Accomplished banner BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #101

+1,000 nt MADem Jul 2013 #102

"Rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment"? Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #56

Watch the clip...the article is mostly filled with glowing references BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #64

The Boston Globe, April 19 Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #72

Four days after the attack...were they trying to sell papers? BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #87

I think the cover and story is much ado about nothing.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2013 #51

More fake outrage. Annoying. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #58

It's fauxrage. If Nat'l Review had put him on their cover, these same people would be silent. reformist2 Jul 2013 #59

Really? You think Lawrence O'Donnell and the various victims thucythucy Jul 2013 #123

Same photo was the NY Times Page One above the fold on May 5, 2013 Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #126

Point taken. thucythucy Jul 2013 #129

What we really need is people to howl in outrage about other people's outrage Orrex Jul 2013 #60

excellent article. It's easy for a terrorist to grow at home. lota Mutts lookin' for Jeffs to follow Sunlei Jul 2013 #61

No, being pissed actually feels good Puzzledtraveller Jul 2013 #62

People don't read any more obviously... JCMach1 Jul 2013 #65

Hate the Free Press...burn the rag and all dangerous books and ideas... Octafish Jul 2013 #66

Would people be so outraged if the picture had been of a "menacing" black teenager? Skwmom Jul 2013 #67

Lawrence O'Donnel spoke about this last night. Whisp Jul 2013 #68

I didn't see the show gvstn Jul 2013 #69

O'Donnell was being a self-righteous pissed off Southie. Myrina Jul 2013 #82

Larry's 'showbiz' work got some harsh reviews from RS so he's wicked bittah Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #113

Buzzfeed has the 15 revelations found in hte article gvstn Jul 2013 #73

How does it compare with this one from Boston Globe in April? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #75

The Globe article is better written for a news story. gvstn Jul 2013 #86

So you at least admit that Boston Globe has done 'essetially the same story' Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #107

Admit??? gvstn Jul 2013 #111

Oh and this quote from Slate gvstn Jul 2013 #114

You admit both stories are essentially the same, but you cann't say why one is Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #119

The irony of discussing outrage addiction on DU .... AngryAmish Jul 2013 #77

Everyday It's One Thing Or Another otohara Jul 2013 #147

I can see why pipi_k Jul 2013 #79

Can you compare this piece in the Boston Globe to Rolling Stone and explain Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #83

I don't have pipi_k Jul 2013 #91

Of course you don't have to explain but if you are uable to explain why you are Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #92

Because those stories appeared thucythucy Jul 2013 #136

Because how dare we accept that 'bad guys' look like US? Myrina Jul 2013 #81

These are both NewEngland companies and they can choose not to sell a magazine karynnj Jul 2013 #85

As you might have noticed, the OP is not about free speech cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #90

You set up the original strawman BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #99

It's not a free speech issue--it's a question of expectations. MADem Jul 2013 #108

If people 'expect' that they are unaware of the history of the magazine Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #112

Well, when cover after cover, year after year, is professionally posed and shot pictures of MADem Jul 2013 #120

What about the cover of the Cop beating someone? Nixon? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #122

Post 124. You need to look at those covers from MOST to LEAST recent. MADem Jul 2013 #127

So your take is that if we ignore all the precedents and simply claim they don't Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #132

Oh, please--you just aren't making your case. MADem Jul 2013 #148

My reaction to your op was that it was implicitly karynnj Jul 2013 #118

Why do you instantly assume that all of the outrage is pretend? thucythucy Jul 2013 #137

outrage over nothing is still outrage, so in that sense it is real cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #142

So I guess the answer is yes, thucythucy Jul 2013 #143

Colbert Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #125

I'm of several minds about all this. thucythucy Jul 2013 #128

zim gets off and folks are outraged at a fucking magazine cover dembotoz Jul 2013 #130

Gee, put HIM on the cover--we've got a few months yet before he's past his sell-by date! MADem Jul 2013 #131

Glorified? By calling him a monster, an extemist and a bomber? Where's the glory? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #138

I loved "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" thucythucy Jul 2013 #144

You're avoiding the key point I made because you know I'm telling the truth. MADem Jul 2013 #145

"Is there no limit to our national outrage-addiction?" NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #146