General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Rolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo. [View all]wercal
(1,370 posts)....and occassionally a shitty editor tries to exploit it.
I'm not mad at them. That's what alot of magazine covers are for...to shock or intrigue you into buying it.
But all this righteous indignation, 'the article was really good', 'you just don't get it' talk - that's a load.
Rolling Stone aimed to shock, and they did. They got alot of free publicity - precisely because there was predictable outrage in Boston. IOW, they successfully used the Boston victims. The strategy worked. That's fine. But they should 'own' it, and be proud of it....not enlist their readers to shout down people who don't like it, in the name of 'journalism'. The cover was 'journalism' like Howard Stern throwing bologna at women's naked bodies is 'journalism'...shock jock 'journalism'. Howard 'owns it'...Rolling Stone should too.
BTW, I hope you can understand the difference between a tornado and terrorism. To use your terminology, a tornado is a 'shitty thing happens' moment. Terrorism isn't. It is entirely avoidable, and a very deliberate act.