this is causing major controversy in the states
people are freaking the fcuk out
Rolling Stones put the younger bomber and people are saying that a) the photo makes him look like a rock star and that the piece itself is too sympathetic for a terrorist and sort of makes him out to be a martyr
They even freaking out about the title, The Bomber
i guess i understand it a tiny bit but not really
i already printed out the article and interested in reading it
He's so beautiful. I bet he gets lottsa chicks. I want to be a bomber now....
^555...yeah...they should have had him dress up in bomber gear with grenades in each hand...not fair to depict him washed and in normal street clothes....555
I'm sure the families of his victims aren't too thrilled about this. Myself, I think it is in very poor taste and just shows the lengths that some of the media will go to get 'noticed'.
There has been a lot of study done on the reasons and motivations for mass killers and all though they have always occurred throughout history they have become much more common from the 70's on and the main conclusion has been because they get made famous by their disgusting crimes.
Now each is trying to better the last one.
If no media publicised their names or published their photos an awful lot of these sociopaths and pshycopaths would not commit their crimes.
Look at the number of copycat school killings in the US
Maybe Rolling Stone might attract the attention of one of these scum and it could disuade the media from giving them the publicity they crave.
Rolling Stone is aimed at a certain demographic and their target audience are not he same as main stream/ serious news papers. The cover photo is causing a lot of negative comments but the exact same photo was on the front page of the New York Times over 2 months ago.Originally Posted by marc26
Have had a very quick read of the Rolling Stone article and it seems to be just a repeat of various other quotes/stories about his family , upbringing and how most of his peers/friends thought he was just a 'normal' guy who wasn't at all interested in Islam/terrorism.
If this same article had appeared in (for example) the Sunday Times or one of the major American newspapers with a different cover photo I don't think it would be headline news.
I think its disgusting that any form of public media is allowed to or indeed wants to put the picture of a indiscriminate killer on their front page. It isin mymind sensationalising his act and could promote more wanna be 5 minute infamous twattlers to do the same???
Custard should be a colour...cos I could then paint over the mess I've just made!!!
My point exactly
They sensationalise with no responsibility or morals.
No media should print a name or photo
They should wait until he's convicted and then print a photo of the bastard - after he receives the death penalty !!
Shows how much looks matter in society. They wouldn't have done it if he was not good looking.
Famous people get on the cover ..... be hard to see this any other way .... quite an honor ...and you can always trust the media to find a new low in self-promotion ......no such thing as bad publicity and all that.... everyone will be talking about Rolling Stone....
good catch( how the fcuk did you find that!)Rolling Stone is aimed at a certain demographic and their target audience are not he same as main stream/ serious news papers. The cover photo is causing a lot of negative comments but the exact same photo was on the front page of the New York Times over 2 months ago.
Have had a very quick read of the Rolling Stone article and it seems to be just a repeat of various other quotes/stories about his family , upbringing and how most of his peers/friends thought he was just a 'normal' guy who wasn't at all interested in Islam/terrorism.
If this same article had appeared in (for example) the Sunday Times or one of the major American newspapers with a different cover photo I don't think it would be headline news.
but i think the uproar is the fact that Rolling Stone covers are reserved for Rock Stars, usually with a photo shoot involved
so by putting him on the cover they are sort of promoting him in that way, then the title The Bomber seems like something they would attach to a singer, such as "The Singer" or something
Rolling Stone certainly achieved their goal, this is what they wanted to happen
personally i read the article and i thought it was a decent article, nothing too new revealed though
Basically sums it up nicely.Analysis
Nick BryantBBC News, New York
Had this picture appeared on the front cover of a news magazine, like Time or Newsweek, there would not have been a social media backlash. Indeed, the same portrait featured prominently on the front page of the New York Times in May without controversy. Rolling Stone is different because it's done so much over the decades to shape American popular and celebrity culture.
To some, then, a bomb suspect is being depicted as a cultural icon. The sepia-tinted photograph, where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appears rather dreamy and vacant, looks like a relic from the 70s. Again, it has fuelled criticisms that the magazine is softening, even glamorising, his alleged crimes.
This controversy also says a lot about the state of the American magazine market, and the pressure on publications to produce eye-catching and newsy images. This week Newsweek spliced together the portraits of the Florida teenager Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, the man acquitted last weekend of his murder. Bloomberg's Businessweek depicted a hedge-fund manager with a graph coming from his groin that intentionally looked phallic.
and i do think what magazine on makes a difference
NYT is going to post what photos are available and give you the news
a magazine like Rolling Stone, especially the cover story, is reserved for Rock Stars/celebreties
^ Charles Manson was featured on a RS cover many moons ago so there is no precedent broken with this cover...or does he not count because he is a celebrity
IMO this is a "beat up" by one (The self righteous) sector of the press on another (the "controversial")....if we are going to get our knickers in a twist every time they feel like manipulating us into a reaction like this we will all be sopranos
Last edited by nelsonone; 18th July 2013 at 22:14.
Yeah but wasn't Manson a part time musician? Or did he take that up after he was behind bars?
the cover and story didn't bother me at all
i can see people's point and understand their reasoning for being upset, but me personally, i wasn't that fussed
Believe me when I say manson was not put on the cover of RS for his musicianship 555
Oh I believe it. I remember Guns n Roses got some grief several years for doing a cover of one of his songs. It was awful 555
if i am being honest, i think Boston has gone a bit over the top with this
even though it is a major city it really is a small town feel, and very fiercely protective of the city and each other( which is a good thing)
but i think they have been a bit over dramatic with it all, and sort of acting like Boston is the only city that would have rallied around something like this
that being said, i plan on being in Boston next year for the Marathon
it is literally one of the most fun days of the year and would like Ao to experience it, although she will probably just whine 555
Posting Permissions
5Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote