General Discussion

MADem

(135,425 posts)

47. Yes it was--it was a carefully posed "selfie" designed to put him at his best.

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 07:47 AM

Jul 2013

I like the pic the statie took of him coming out of the boat. That would work as a cover shot.

If Rolling Stone was concerned with murderers, why didn't they put these guys on the cover?

Answer--they're not cute, with dreamy eyes and expensive shirts and tousled hair.

Believe me, in the city of Boston, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, this guy could have two pig heads and be six different kinds of "abnormal looking" and people would still care about seeing justice done. He could look like an angel and people would still want justice.

It's about NOT creating a cult of personality around him, that's what most feel.

People are concerned about what he DID, and they feel that the attention should be focused away from him--that he shouldn't be given the Fame Monster Gift that RS has handed to him with this boneheaded choice of a cover, like he's a Kardashian with pressure cooker bombs.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

194 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo. [View all] sheshe2 Jul 2013 OP

It's a punch in the gut for those directly affected BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #1

I've read the story too. I think it was first rate cali Jul 2013 #69

It adds zero to what was already known BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #70

oh please. it was the first serious look at him and his life cali Jul 2013 #71

Tired argument...do you acknowledge that if you were missing a leg right now courtesy of Jahar BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #76

the article certainly does not treat him as a victim. cali Jul 2013 #106

Props for an honest answer BeyondGeography Jul 2013 #108

I think the people getting their knickers in a twist over this are ridiculous. Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #2

i think part of it is the particular picture that was used for the cover JI7 Jul 2013 #5

Of course it is. The whole point was "How did someone with this much potential go so wrong?" NYC Liberal Jul 2013 #7

No, IMO, the REAL point they are trying to push is that MicaelS Jul 2013 #95

Oh really? And how's that? NYC Liberal Jul 2013 #100

Did you read the cover? MicaelS Jul 2013 #109

If we write off terrorists as just evil... Orsino Jul 2013 #141

And? Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #151

that particular picture has been above the fold on the front page of cali Jul 2013 #68

NYT is on the shelves, flat, in a pile, for a single day. MADem Jul 2013 #9

Thank you for your post, MADem~ Cha Jul 2013 #11

Anytime. nt MADem Jul 2013 #16

And? Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #22

If you can't figure out the difference between one day of "display" laid flat, and a month MADem Jul 2013 #23

But your personal view is, apparently? Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #26

My personal view, as someone from the Bay State, is that the magazine cover is tasteless. MADem Jul 2013 #28

.... Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #29

He's not from Boston, he's from the burbs, and he hasn't lived here in years. MADem Jul 2013 #30

And you don't have an agenda? Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #31

It doesn't "work because of cognitive dissonance." And just because someone from MADem Jul 2013 #34

The cover wasn't glamorizing him. Dash87 Jul 2013 #39

Yes it was--it was a carefully posed "selfie" designed to put him at his best. MADem Jul 2013 #47

That would defeat the purpose. Dash87 Jul 2013 #57

RS was glamorizing him. MADem Jul 2013 #130

Not always Dash87 Jul 2013 #132

Are you sure about that? I keep asking for a copy of that cover, and no one can come up with it. MADem Jul 2013 #134

That would actually be Time magazine. You're right. Dash87 Jul 2013 #139

I rest my case. MADem Jul 2013 #142

I don't see it - despite RS's history, this isn't the same. Dash87 Jul 2013 #145

People don't read the captions. MADem Jul 2013 #147

On the street interviews? You are really basing your argument.... Logical Jul 2013 #180

Yeah, that's it, pay no attention to what people are actually saying! MADem Jul 2013 #181

LOL, "difficult for you to grasp" and then whine about snark. Classic! n-t Logical Jul 2013 #183

Who's whining? I'm just pointing out what is obvious to anyone reading this thread. MADem Jul 2013 #188

You have no point at all. But it was entertaining for me. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #190

You apparently are easily amused. nt MADem Jul 2013 #193

Dramatic contrast lost on the dogmatic... LanternWaste Jul 2013 #127

No. I do not agree. Otherwise they would have used one of his "normal kid" shots, not a "glamour MADem Jul 2013 #131

Rolling Stone is published every two weeks, issues are not on the stand for a month but for two Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #94

I don't 'claim to be a big expert'--I have read the thing off and on since the late sixties. MADem Jul 2013 #123

Rolling Stone made the fucking point they wanted to make.... Logical Jul 2013 #45

Rolling Stone made the point they wanted to make. MADem Jul 2013 #48

They love this attention. Just like the people trying to ban movies. It always.... Logical Jul 2013 #56

No one is trying to "ban" anything. Some businesses are saying "We won't sell your shit. Buy it MADem Jul 2013 #133

Yes, just because I do not shop there, I cannot think they are idiots! n-t Logical Jul 2013 #135

You can think whatever you'd like, and others can have the very same impression of you. MADem Jul 2013 #137

I 100% agree, they are free to be clueless. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #138

Indeed, as are you--and you can even do so quite proudly and smugly, if you'd like. nt MADem Jul 2013 #140

Lol, taking this personal I see. Figures. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #153

Look, you don't have to share your innermost thoughts with me. I understand that you're a bit upset MADem Jul 2013 #161

Reality? Meaning think like you do? Now that is funny. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #179

No, reality....like, where you can buy that magazine. MADem Jul 2013 #182

I laugh at the whining over one damn magazine cover when 99% of the .... Logical Jul 2013 #185

The article is online--most people have read it, and while it doesn't plow much new ground, the MADem Jul 2013 #187

I have no issue with them not carrying it. But they are wrong not too. And... Logical Jul 2013 #191

Here is a link to someone saying they are "wrong" to not carry it. MADem Jul 2013 #192

clueless? sheshe2 Jul 2013 #148

+1 dionysus Jul 2013 #85

lol desperate much? cali Jul 2013 #84

Your subject line reflects entirely on you. You do realize that, don't you? MADem Jul 2013 #136

Thank you for your responses here, MADem. sheshe2 Jul 2013 #90

You are most welcome. I think they don't quite realize it yet, but they're hoisting themselves upon MADem Jul 2013 #144

Not even the most basic facts are correct, hard to read past the glaring errors. Rolling Stone is Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #93

Read the thread, and you'll see I addressed that. MADem Jul 2013 #146

No kidding. Daemonaquila Jul 2013 #41

I have to agree n/t deutsey Jul 2013 #42

In your view, how should the victims and families of victims react? Orrex Jul 2013 #59

How did they react when that same picture was on the front page of pretty much every newspaper? Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #72

All of the criticism I've seen has been about the cover photo Orrex Jul 2013 #73

The editor-publisher of RS is an old guy, that's why. MADem Jul 2013 #186

"I think the people getting their knickers in a twist over this are ridiculous." sheshe2 Jul 2013 #91

obama was on their cover. did you protest then? his policies have killed FAR more people nt msongs Jul 2013 #3

... Tx4obama Jul 2013 #4

Why are you thumbing that down. Fawke Em Jul 2013 #165

The regulations and 'ZONING' of the Texas plant is the fault of Governor Perry and Texas - not Obama Tx4obama Jul 2013 #166

I'm not one of those people and neither is my son. Fawke Em Jul 2013 #169

It was only a 'storage' facility, they didn't actually make it there. Tx4obama Jul 2013 #170

I understand that. I do, really. Fawke Em Jul 2013 #171

People tell me there aren't any people here who literally hate geek tragedy Jul 2013 #43

Yeah....yeah.....and Bill Clinton too!!! ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2013 #117

Gee msongs... sheshe2 Jul 2013 #149

Unfortunately the R.S. article is very good olddots Jul 2013 #6

That's not unfortunate. Iggo Jul 2013 #35

So the best way to prevent it from happening in the future is to stick head in sand dogknob Jul 2013 #8

I'm sorry about Cha Jul 2013 #10

Yes, suppressing the press is always a great idea. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #46

It's a consumer product. pintobean Jul 2013 #64

I agree it is their right. Just fucking stupid. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #66

Nobody's buying it, sheshe2 ReRe Jul 2013 #12

Damn, now I'm going to have to subscribe to the first magazine I'll have paid for in years Fumesucker Jul 2013 #14

Hold off, Fumesucker. The jury isn't in yet. ReRe Jul 2013 #15

Oh, your glee in boasting that leftist hippie rag is going under is all the impetus I need Fumesucker Jul 2013 #17

Tell that to the people of Boston.. ReRe Jul 2013 #19

My husband's from Boston and we'll be buying the magazine. Fawke Em Jul 2013 #77

There is NO jury and there will be NO jury HangOnKids Jul 2013 #20

It just doesn't look like a good business decision to me. That's all I wanted to get across. ReRe Jul 2013 #21

Banned in Boston. Why folks from other places are not always in that chorus.... Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #102

Boston banned "Wake Up, Little Susie."? Fawke Em Jul 2013 #168

The magazine is not "banned" anywhere, least of all Boston. MADem Jul 2013 #178

What gets thrown out with the cover is the article itself... Pholus Jul 2013 #33

Don't worry ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2013 #118

Katy Perry has a chest? Fawke Em Jul 2013 #173

I suspect Rolling Stone will survive this. Warren DeMontague Jul 2013 #24

It was a huge publicity blitz for them, make no mistake--no one buys magazines in July anyway. MADem Jul 2013 #25

Odd. I would think that would be the time people DID buy mags. Fawke Em Jul 2013 #81

I guess people prefer Ye Olde Paperback Summer Potboiler...? MADem Jul 2013 #163

I prefer Ye Olde "Don't Break My Bank if I Drop it In" Fawke Em Jul 2013 #164

I don't understand your PS. MADem Jul 2013 #177

The problem is most of their sales come from subscriptions davidpdx Jul 2013 #37

that's because nothing happened frylock Jul 2013 #157

That's debatable davidpdx Jul 2013 #162

bull. RS will be fine. Jann Wenner knows what he's doing cali Jul 2013 #40

He also publishes US WEEKLY, that will put whatever it needs to on the cover to drive sales. MADem Jul 2013 #49

I am NOT on a fucking campaign AGAINST ROLLING STONE! ReRe Jul 2013 #50

and who is telling you to shut up? Disagreeing with you is not cali Jul 2013 #53

I'm afraid there's only one POV that is "acceptable" to some....and that is that people who object MADem Jul 2013 #189

Thank, I will make a point to go to my local purveyor and getting a copy nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #112

Yep. And all this manufactured outrage is prompting me to renew my subscription, kath Jul 2013 #174

Fox News manufactured outrage Phil1934 Jul 2013 #13

Welcome to DU Fumesucker Jul 2013 #18

Thanks. Scurrilous Jul 2013 #27

I can't see how censorship ever helps... Pholus Jul 2013 #32

Those are weekly news magazines, not a music-entertainment magazine that does the odd MADem Jul 2013 #51

my goodness, you really no nothing about RS cali Jul 2013 #54

Very weak comeback and shows NO insight into the magazine. Pholus Jul 2013 #58

Only the government can censor. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #62

That is not the case. First Amendment applies to government, but other entities Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #122

So many are missing the point. Dash87 Jul 2013 #36

A post of sanity among a thread of contrived outrage. RC Jul 2013 #74

+1. Beautifully said, but way over the heads of the outrage junkies. (nt) Paladin Jul 2013 #87

what codswallop. cali Jul 2013 #38

+1 MrSlayer Jul 2013 #60

it's like coach used to tell us: datasuspect Jul 2013 #44

A different perspective WilliamPitt Jul 2013 #52

Thanks! I enjoyed reading that. nt Pholus Jul 2013 #65

Thank you. Fawke Em Jul 2013 #167

Boston happily gave up its right in regards to warrantless searches during this ordeal... egduj Jul 2013 #55

THIS!!! Fawke Em Jul 2013 #82

Attitudes like yrs have given the magazine heaps of publicity... Violet_Crumble Jul 2013 #61

I always feel that "honoring a loss" without looking at any other part of a tragedy fosters an odd Brickbat Jul 2013 #63

+Infinity! HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #126

It was just a picture of him. That's what he looks like. gollygee Jul 2013 #67

People get mad when their monsters don't look like monsters. (n/t) Iggo Jul 2013 #79

You know what bothers me most about this thread? Fawke Em Jul 2013 #75

Were you equally "bothered" by all the people who had convicted Zimmerman Common Sense Party Jul 2013 #88

Yes. Fawke Em Jul 2013 #98

Then I applaud your even-handedness. But on DU, saying "let's wait for the evidence, Common Sense Party Jul 2013 #103

Do they have that evidence? Fawke Em Jul 2013 #115

This OP is horseshit! Vinnie From Indy Jul 2013 #78

The best judge for if what they did was right or wrong AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #80

Letter from the mayor wercal Jul 2013 #83

squawl on all you wish, just don't expect anyone else to shut up cali Jul 2013 #86

"squawl on all you wish, just don't expect anyone else to shut up" sheshe2 Jul 2013 #89

oh a great many people wish me to shut up. I don't doubt that you're one of them cali Jul 2013 #97

Oh my dear cali, sheshe2 Jul 2013 #143

Sure shitty things happen... wercal Jul 2013 #96

Maybe RS did aim to shock, but I'm shocked that anyone is shocked cali Jul 2013 #99

I think the Stern comparison is appropriate wercal Jul 2013 #124

or maybe because you just don't read enough period. cali Jul 2013 #125

I'm still waiting to be educated wercal Jul 2013 #128

Thank you wercal, sheshe2 Jul 2013 #150

I wonder at the reaction here if George Zimmerman were put on the cover of Guns and Ammo. cigsandcoffee Jul 2013 #92

wow. is that a crap comparison. cali Jul 2013 #101

I disagree. On the cover of Rolling Stone, pretty much anyone looks like a pop star. cigsandcoffee Jul 2013 #105

How are they doing that when they clearly Fawke Em Jul 2013 #104

Visuals have a stronger impact than words, and Rolling Stone knows this. cigsandcoffee Jul 2013 #110

But that's the way he looks. Fawke Em Jul 2013 #116

The problem with the Rolling Stone cover is the outrage NuclearDem Jul 2013 #107

I read the article, NuclearDem thucythucy Jul 2013 #121

So how exactly should they change how he physically looks nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #111

+ a goddamn bajillion NuclearDem Jul 2013 #114

Upton Sinclair said this when his work was banned in Boston: Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #113

Wow ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2013 #119

The Boston busing crisis occurred a mere 40-odd years HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #129

Then ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2013 #154

Well, it was a nice thought ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2013 #120

The RS mag did the right thing and are keeping with their tradition. Rex Jul 2013 #152

This is sensationalistic nonsense. Apophis Jul 2013 #155

Hell with RS. darkangel218 Jul 2013 #156

so is it boston strong or not? frylock Jul 2013 #158

Sad that you would ask that, frylock. sheshe2 Jul 2013 #159

nobody is bashing the victims of boston ffs.. frylock Jul 2013 #160

Seriously? sheshe2 Jul 2013 #175

except that RS isn't trying to pass the patriot act, nor is it trying to bash the victims of boston. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #184

One of the dumbest things RS has ever done brentspeak Jul 2013 #172

Your original post on April 21st was very sensitive and appropriate ... DreamGypsy Jul 2013 #176

Clearly, RS airbrushed out Tsarnaev's fangs and horns. n/t Orsino Jul 2013 #194