General Discussion

Pholus

(4,062 posts)

58. Very weak comeback and shows NO insight into the magazine.

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 09:23 AM

Jul 2013

Certainly, your lofty opinion dissing the magazine was never given voice when this cover generated outrage:

The article was actually pretty good. Much as I expect the article behind your infamous cover to be. I bet the point of it is that bad guys don't have to look like bad guys.

You have a curiously stunted approach to the world if you compartmentalize that much. Rolling Stone as a music-entertainment magazine?

Pshaw!

I should ignore Matt Taibbi's articles on Goldman Sachs' abuses or the home forclosure scandal because he writes for a "music-entertainment" magazine?

Hastings' articles on McChrystal? Obvious bunk -- he should be writing about Jay-Z.

What was Paul Krugman doing spending his precious economics capital when he wrote for them?

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