General Discussion

MADem

(135,425 posts)

148. Oh, please--you just aren't making your case.

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:50 AM

Jul 2013

You have to go back forty years to grasp a few examples--it's clear that the magazine has adopted a paradigm over the decades that doesn't include "hard hitting news" on their covers. They prefer Jennifer Anniston, or Justin Timberlake, or Kanye West--looking blow dried, air-brushed, dreamy and perfect.

That's what sells their product.

And you're the one who keeps bringing up "Teen Beat," not me.

Like I said elsewhere, magazines that display vulgar pictures of nudes sometimes have "journalistic" articles in them--that doesn't make them a News Magazine. It makes them nudie mags that have an occasional newsworthy article between the airbrushed naked pictures.

Rolling Stone is a music entertainment industry magazine. They sometimes do a little "reporting" on the side, but their bread and butter is music and musicians, and to a lesser extent, film and televison stars.

Step right up, buy your copy, and "fight the power."

Whatever.

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