Now we have the marathon bomber suspects photo on the front cover of the Rolling Stone magazine looking like a glamorous rock star, don't know what to think about that
What next !
Now we have the marathon bomber suspects photo on the front cover of the Rolling Stone magazine looking like a glamorous rock star, don't know what to think about that
We are now taking bets on when DockRat posts an Obama related response.Originally Posted by old pudd fisher
Now we have the marathon bomber suspects photo on the front cover of the Rolling Stone magazine looking like a glamorous rock star, don't know what to think about that
The O/U stands at 3.5 posts with the under running at -300. Call ur bookies NOW.
Kinda stupid of the mag trying to sell mags this way.
I'm all for freedom of the press, but I think that was a F'd up, vain, affected, disingenuous stunt by Rolling Stone.
Current office talk says Rolling Stone put Charles Manson on the front cover before...how come?
Devil's Advocate here, CD. (Since I pretty much share your opinion.)
Since the comparison has already been made elsewhere, let me ask you this: let's say this was 1970 and not 2013. What would have been your opinion of Rolling Stone's use of Charles Manson's image on RS 61 (June 25, 1970)? It appeared after the murders, at the beginning of the Manson trial, but well before his conviction and sentencing.
"You bet on the under, didn't ya!?"
I'm pretty sure it's a photo that was used when he was first caught. At least, that's how it looks to me. If I'm correct, what's the problem. Even if I'm mistaken, what does it matter? Do you really think he will be found not guilty? It seems the evidence is pretty clear and a guilty verdict will come down. Bet on it!Now we have the marathon bomber suspects photo on the front cover of the Rolling Stone magazine looking like a glamorous rock star, don't know what to think about that
To borrow from Lou Reed, those were different times - no internet or social media saturating young, volatile minds with images of desirable consequences for monstrous acts. That said, I doubt a lofty intent of the manson cover as well, style trumping substance as it always has. Shock for the sake of shock is nothing new I suppose, but in the context of our present social/political reality I see the Bomber cover as profoundly irresponsible where as the manson cover just seems sorta hokey now.
I think RS is less relevant than it was 40 years ago. It may have a wider circulation, but print media simply can't influence as it once did, since there are so many other options to get your daily dose of stupid. I see Tsarnaev on the cover of RS and the first word that comes to mind is schlock. Hell, my own kids give more credence to YouTube than they do to Rolling Stone. (On a side note, I do believe that we've become overly "socially-conscious" when it comes to events occurring in the world around us. Instead of making us better citizens, I feel it's actually cheapened our outrage when events like the Boston Marathon Bombing occur.)
Does RS have the right to do what they did? Sure. Do they have a moral responsibility to not do it? No, and I wouldn't want to give them that sort of power. Is what they did tasteless? Absolutely. I wonder if Jann Wenner would have been so enthusiastic about it if one of his kids at lost a couple limbs to the bombing.
Thanks for the input, CD.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
