General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo.
I know HerRePost
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022731219
Martin Richard lay dead behind my friend. His parents are reaching out to him in anquish.
This is the reason that Rolling Stone should not be placing the Marathon Bomber on the cover. Tsarnaev's sweet picture, front and center for all of us to see.
Many say we need to see how such a sweet boy could do such a thing. Seriously? Those of us in Boston have heard that story. We were here and we watched all the news. We know Tsarnaev's history. We do not need more.
Honor Bostons loss.
This is Boston!
We've also seen astonishing courage. In the years to come, as we celebrate future marathons, we'll of course never forget what happened in Boston. But our memories won't just be fixated on the horror of wounded bodies. Just like flight 93, there will be an enduring and inspiring record of those who rose to the moment. In the police officers, soldiers, and bystanders who ripped down barricades and went door to door and gave their lives, in the EMTs and doctors who worked relentlessly to preserve life. And in the runners, who, after 26 miles of brutal physical endeavor, turned and ran into the smoke to rescue strangers.
And even though it might not last, for a time at least, our political rancor faded. Boston proved that the foundations of American government remain firm. We took comfort in the FBI press conferences. We kept trust in our great offices of state. When it came to Boston, there were no Republicans and Democrats, just American leaders.
But perhaps this is the most powerful truth of Boston: At the crucial core of our identity, the divisions between us are paper thin. Red Sox fans like me will never forget the support of our coastal neighbor (and hated rival), the New York Yankees. But for all our teams' bitter history, in those two minutes in which Yankees fans sang Boston's "Sweet Caroline," Red Sox Nation and our entire nation saw a clear and certain truth. Whatever our creed, whatever our regional allegiance, whatever our color, whatever our politics, we are one people. We are a people individually diverse but unbreakably united.
http://theweek.com/article/index/243029/from-boston-powerful-truths-for-america
h/t Cha for the link
From my original post.
I have worked with her.
I did not know she was there that day, until a friend sent me this picture. I have several friends that work on Boylston Street. They were only a couple doors down from the blast. They lost windows on two floors.
I have seen two of them this week. With tears in their eyes, they tell of the shock they felt upon seeing fallen bodies, the blood, the severed limbs. It is something that they will carry with them forever. They are getting grief counselling, I hope it helps with the nightmares.
I work with another woman, her eyes filled with emotion, when she told me her daughter and son in law were attending Krystals wake today. I work with three people that live in Watertown, it was a war zone.
Tragedy occurs and we all weep for the loss, feel their pain. We do feel it. Yet it is chilling when it touches you personally, it sends shivers down your spine. These are people that I have laughed with, joked with, had lunch with. I have never been so close to a tragedy like this. I have never had a personal connection to the people involved in such an event. Until Monday.
In time, the pain will lessen. In time we will heal.
We are Boston Strong and yes we will survive.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)That should be clear. Doesn't mean the victims and their families should dictate RS editorial policy, just that their perspective should be be factored in to any thoughtful reaction here.
And I've read the story. Very weak.
cali
(114,904 posts)as do many, many people. the article has been lauded everywhere from the NYT to USA today.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Pretty sad when you've got two extra months to dig up something. Their reporter was right to cancel on Lawrence O'D. She had nothing.
I did learn that Jahar is $20K in debt, which gave me additional insight into his nihilism. But that doesn't fit with "how he was failed by his family and turned into a monster." The article doesn't come close to delivering what is suggested on the cover. The whole enterprise is a well-crafted stunt and we're playing along.
cali
(114,904 posts)that I've seen.
and tell me, were you ever so outraged about the NYT putting that fucking same pic of him above the fold on the front page? If so, please link to your righteous outrage. If not, why not?
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)you would be upset with this cover and an article that portrays him as a victim?
cali
(114,904 posts)It attempts to explain who he was, where he came from, why he did what he did. I happen to think that's important.
I honestly don't know how I'd feel had I lost a leg, but I do know myself quite well: I suspect that this is not something that would outrage me though I might find it upsetting. Judging by what I've been through in my life and my reactions, I can't see myself outraged over this.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)I can understand the outrage that many people feel over this and I suspect you can, too. That was the point of my opening post here.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There wasn't this kind of outrage when the New York Times ran with the same picture, front page, above the fold. For that matter there wasn't this kind of outrage when Rolling Stone put Charles Manson on their cover in 1970. The entire reaction to this has been vastly disproportionate, absurd, and frankly stupid.
JI7
(89,250 posts)and i think the only reason they put him on the cover was because of that pic.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a victim. It's not his fault that he and his brother set off those bombs. It's someone elses' fault.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)In other words, once again, it's blame the family time. And he just "fell" into Radical Islam, like it was a hole he couldn't avoid.
Of course they do finally call him a "Monster", but only after qualifying it.
And I edited my first post, because it gave the impression I was sympathizing with him, and I most certainly do not.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...then the Bushies have won.
What's been quoted so far in this thread in no way excuses Tsarnaev. We liberals are supposed to be willing to look for causes behind mere effects, and for the humanity behind the mass-media images.
Are we afraid that the bomber might have been failed by his family? Since when?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)1. Bright, promising student or young professional (most people who knew him say he was once a decent sort)
2. Parent/marital troubles/abuse/depression, etc.
3. Has ambition and big dreams, but can't quite find his "niche" socially and professionally
4. Completely isolates himself or falls in with wrong crowd (gangs/gun nut militia/drug game/political or religious extremists)
5. National tragedy ensues
You've just named Virginia Tech, Columbine, Unabomber, Brevik, etc. etc....All those folks made national covers, too
cali
(114,904 posts)the NYT and many other newspapers. Where's the fucking outrage over that? Oh, it NEVER happened.
this is so pathetic. talk about buying into stupid ginned up outrage. congrats on that to all the suckers.
furthermore, the article was excellent as virtually everyone has acknowledged.
MADem
(135,425 posts)RS is displayed upright, on magazines shelves, for a month. The typical RS cover, overwhelmingly, is of rock stars, movie stars, and celebrities, gussied up to look good. Airbrushed, photoshopped, and prettified.
Look--no one is saying don't buy the stupid rag, and then try to sell it on EBAY like some idiots are doing. Or line the birdcage with it...whatever.
Just don't expect to buy it at New England based businesses that have a modicum of respect and restraint for a region that dealt with such a profound loss.
And you are mistaken--I remember the Charles Manson cover firsthand, and it DID cause a great deal of ""outrage" for the same reason--because "the cover of the Rolling Stone" is supposed to be an HONOR.
Are you not old enough to remember this? Listen to the lyrics.
Cha
(297,275 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Do you have an actual point here apart from irrational outrage? Rolling Stone is a magazine which, in addition to its coverage of popular culture, features serious journalism; that the subjects of such serious journalism may be on the cover is not really something I personally see as an issue. If it were Time or US News & World Report no-one would bat an eyelid.
MADem
(135,425 posts)of that twit leering out from a magazine shelf, I can't help you. You are plainly insufficiently equipped to grasp that "actual point" I made.
Let me make this entirely clear to you--go buy the fucking magazine, if it means that much to you. Just don't expect to buy it at New England based businesses that have a modicum of respect for their customers. Don't like that? Too effin' bad. And don't get "irrationally outraged" that you can't stroll into CVS and buy the thing. See, no one cares that you're annoyed about this. You aren't gonna get your way. Your personal view is not, and will not be, controlling on this matter.
Since you're intent on creating bullshit comparisons, do TIME or US NEWS devote most of their covers to airbrushed pop stars, movie stars, and prettied up celebrities who are portrayed in a positive, worshipful light?
Or do they cover something called "the NEWS" most of the time?
See, the "actual point" there is that Rolling Stone is a music industry magazine that occasionally does culture, crime and politics pieces INSIDE the magazine. US NEWS and TIME are "news" magazines, and "news" is their bread and butter. They sometimes cover the music scene, but they usually do that INSIDE the magazine....
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I'm not "irrationally outraged"; I'm bemused, more than anything. You don't have an actual point; you have mindless indignation and a total inability to grasp the point of the cover, it looks like (which is right there in the caption, by the way; how does an apparently "normal" and popular kid turn into a terrorist/bomber/mass murderer?). And it's the exact same photo that ran on page one of the New York Times; cropped, but not retouched or otherwise altered.
And Rolling Stone routinely does politics and news stories, not "occasionally"; it was something reported in RS that got Stanley McChrystal dismissed for insubordination, if you'll remember (along with Matt Taibbi's articles on the financial crisis); those surely qualify as "serious" journalism?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I support CVS's decision, along with Walgreen's, Stop and Shop, Tedeschi's and other businesses, to not carry the magazine.
You wanna buy it? Go ahead. Just don't buy it in one of those stores. Don't like that those businesses are not carrying it? Too bad. You paint yourself as "bemused" and not indignant (mindlessly or otherwise), but your continued carping at me about this topic suggests that you're quite annoyed about this--otherwise, you wouldn't go on about it like you're doing. You would, instead, "get over it," and not demand that New Englanders see things your way.
I was born at night, just not last night.
That's my view, and it's not "irrational." What's irrational is that someone is getting pissed off like a wet hen because businesses decide to NOT carry a product, even though those businesses were upfront enough to tell people "Don't come here for this product because we're giving it a miss this month."
I've been reading RS for four or five decades off and on--the politics, with rare exception, is INSIDE. The MURDERERS, with now two exceptions, are inside. The musicians, celebrities, infotainment people--all dressed up with Pepsodent smiles--are on the cover. The only exceptions lately have been the odd mocking cartoons of Bush, and a cover of (rock star, prettified, airbrushed, and smiling) Bill Clinton. Oh--and Al Gore's penis, front and center--another "Rolling Stone Cover Controversy" that they played for all the free publicity it was worth.
Murderers, terrorists, and criminals don't grace the cover of the Rolling Stone. It's not the paradigm. The Manson cover, as I said, caught a world of shit. People thought it was wrong to put a mass murderer on the cover of that magazine.
Guess who was on the cover of that issue you're going on about that featured Stanley McChrystal? The General? Nooooooo. Michael Hastings? Noooooooo! A dusty, grimy pic of an Afghan outpost? NOOOOOOOO!
The cover for that issue was LADY GAGA IN A THONG.
"Serious" journalism, maybe...but the cover stayed true to their business model.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)He wouldn't know the place if he couldn't see the Pru.
And, seeing as he gets a paycheck from RS, doncha think he might have a bit of an agenda? Huh? Maybe? Ya think?
Too bad--his gripes don't fly, EITHER. Read the comments below his little position paper--most people are telling him to pound sand.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"It works because of cognitive dissonance. We see him looking rather angelic on the cover, and just about every picture we've seen of him he looks angelic, that apparently is how he looked," he told the Guardian.
"And meanwhile we see the cover type: 'The bomber. A monster'. So that works well as a really dissonant juxtaposition."
Kennedy noted that no retailers refused to carry the New York Times when it used the same picture on its front pages, and said the furore may have been driven by a lack of understanding of the kind of journalism Rolling Stone does.
"I assume that the editors at Rolling Stone knew that the cover would be controversial, but this may be spinning out of control in ways they did not anticipate.
"One possible explanation for that is that a lot of people really don't understand Rolling Stone. They think it features nothing on the cover but entertainers and celebrities, and in fact Rolling Stone often features serious news on the cover."
I don't really think that you can present YOUR opinion as representative of what every single person from Boston thinks about this issue. "No true Scotsman", eh?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Huntington Avenue says so, doesn't make that true. It does not work because it is tasteless.
It stinks like Rolling Stone trying to make money off of the tragedy of others. It stinks like craven opportunism, rank commercialism, going too far and not "getting" that they are being offensive.
I can tell you this--more people in Boston share my perspective than yours. I'm sure there are contrarians out there, but they are in the minority.
Rolling Stone actually does very little political journalism as a function of their overall product. They may give you an article a month, but the magazine is much bigger than one article.
They should stick to what they're good at, if they can retrieve their customer base.
People can pooh-pooh all they'd like, they'll just have to go buy their magazine elsewhere.... and get over it.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)This is all about what he looks like, and what people perceive a terrorist / bomber should look like. The two don't match, which is making people upset. If he was ugly and abnormal looking, nobody would care. However, since he looks like an average guy - someone you would go to the bar with or meet at a club, it scares people. They don't want it to be true.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)RS was trying to show him when he was perceived as normal. He didn't look like a total nut like Lanza or Holmes. He looked like a normal guy. The point is that this could be anyone on the cover - your neighbor, your friend, your cousin, etc.
The point, I believe, is that there is no "killer" look. It's a stereotype. Showing him to look like a killer wouldn't make the point they were trying to make, and would further the stereotype.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There are plenty of pictures of him available that don't have that soft light, expensive shirt, carefully posed, "look into my eyes" vibe.
They knew what they wanted, and they got it.
He doesn't look at all "normal" in that picture--he probably took a half dozen until he got just the right facial expression, as the kids do these days.
He looks FAMOUS-- like a relaxed rock star; that was surely the look he was going for, and that was the photograph that RS chose...for the very REASON that he looks like a rock star.
I don't think Adam Lanza or the "Aurora Nut" look like killers, either--they look Rather Mentally Ill, frankly. You can walk around any mall in USA and see people with "that look" (maybe without the orange hair) being led around by their tired, older mothers, still raising an adult living in their basement, looking like they could use a break, often as not.
Here's a "normal" kid in a "normal" picture:
Here's another pic of a "normal" kid:
Here's a normal kid with his normal friends:
But none of those would do, now, would they? Why? Because Rolling Stone puts Rock Stars on their cover.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Osama Bin Laden was on a RS cover.
The reason he looks like a 'rock star' in the photo is because they humanized him. The other photos you posted are not as powerful of a statement as him in a "rock star" pose - this portrays him as somebody who is just like everybody else - someone who had a good life.
I see an irony in RS's photo. This is what I'm talking about - he was the normal American male - flashy at times, bit of an ego, maybe even thought of himself as a rock star. Looking at that photo, you would think he had it all. The underlying theme of the photo provokes a sad feeling - how does somebody with so much commit such an atrocity?
If the magazine actually praised him, then the outrage would justified. They didn't.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Wonder why that is?
I remember an article or two about him, but I don't remember him on the cover.
I'd love to see it--please post it. I'll wait.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Anyone who says something similar is probably thinking of the same cover.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Everyone else on the cover of Rolling Stone, save "Jahar" and "Manson," (two covers that have gotten serious pushback) had broad followings--even if the readership of RS didn't necessarily care for them (Bush, RMoney, e.g.). They weren't incarcerated to answer to charges of the crime of mass murder.
The overwhelming majority of RS covers are musicians, actors, and other artists. That is their paradigm, the cover shots are glamorized, and designed to show the subject in the best possible light.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Had the magazine said something like "Dzhokhar's Awesome Life!" or something like that, the outrage would be justified. Instead, the cover just appears to match the contents in the magazine. As stated above, I believe it was intended to be ironic, not glamorizing. It's an attempt to get you to see him as human.
Also, keep in mind that Rolling Stone does have serious journalistic articles pretty often. It's not all pop-related stuff.
I think everybody is finding meaning where there is none. Why would Rolling Stone glamorize Tsarnaev anyways? Doesn't make much sense - there would be no logical reason to.
MADem
(135,425 posts)All I can tell you is to look at the "man/woman on the street" interviews. The overwhelming majority of people see what a few on this thread are struggling to deny--that he is being presented like a Rock Star.
Sometimes, "irony" bleeds over (pardon the term) into "pisspoor judgment" and "bad taste." RS was "too clever by half." This, to my mind, is a desperate attempt by an aging publisher to stay "relevant"
with "the kids." He should gather up his dignity, IMO, say it was a poor editorial choice, and move forward.
It did give him what he wanted, though, which was publicity in a slow month for newsstand publications.
You do realize--or maybe you don't--that there is a large "cult of personality" formed around this little cretin? Look on the Facebook, you'll see.
Logical
(22,457 posts)On that? Wow, now that is classic.
Ever worked with a news crew? I would bet not.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Here's the bottom line, and I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but this is it--you can snark at me all you want. You can be snide, make it a "federal case" because you think I have never "worked with a news crew" and you can even be personally insulting, but the end result won't change a thing.
If you want to buy that magazine, you go on and do it, but understand this: you're not going to buy it at a half dozen or more major outlets where it is ordinarily available, because those businesses, supported by a substantial number of their customers, don't want to see that shit on the shelves.
RS, in a fit of corporate, attention-seeking, greed, miscalculated. They didn't realize the "degree of offense" felt by many of us with their choice of that photo.
And that is what is truly "classic."
Logical
(22,457 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Put your back in it, now....keep digging, if you'd like.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Dramatic contrast used to starkly illustrate a point is lost on the sub-liberate and the dogmatic far too often in this age of stark literalism and denial of context/nuance...
MADem
(135,425 posts)shot."
I won't stoop to make comments using loaded, eff-u terms like "sub-literate," or "dogmatic," because that kind of thing would be both uncivil and personally insulting, and far below the standards of polite discourse on DU, but anyone with an iota of sensitivity and awareness--and, dare I say, an ability to understand the true meaning of NUANCE-- can see that RS was not looking for the contrast between a normal kid and a monster. They wanted the look of a rock star, and they got it.
I've posted a few pics of that "normal kid" they could have used, here are a few more of a "normal kid" -- not a rock star in a designer shirt:
Here's a "normal kid" right before he placed a bomb that killed three people and fucked up hundreds:
They made a deliberate, editorial decision to use that picture, and it wasn't for the purposes of displaying this cretin as a "normal kid." They wanted a rock star. Anyone who cannot see that is being willfully obtuse, complicit in the re-infliction of pain and distress upon victims of this idiot's actions, for purposes that they have to sort out on their own.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)weeks. You claim to be a big expert on what Rolling Stone is, but you think it is a monthly?
Perhaps your view of the magazine is based on your having missed every other issue for the last few decades, thinking it was a monthly?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Do I subscribe? Fuck no. Will I? Same response. Will I pay for it in future? Again, no, not for awhile, anyway, because they've annoyed me. Will I huff and puff with dramatic indignation, and turn my back on it if I see it on some errant coffee table? Of course not, because I don't infuse this shit with as much drama as you are doing.
I used to buy it on rare occasion for the "music industry" and "pop culture" news, which is what it specialized in and what young people (and I was young, once) used to enjoy reading about; more likely, I'd find it on a friend's side table or glance at it in a library--but nowadays I really don't care what Justin Beiber is up to, and their occasional "serious writing" just isn't worth the price of admission.
I don't like what they did with this cover. I support the businesses who have refused to sell this issue. You're just going to have to accept that, much as it quite evidently infuriates you.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Some are too clueless or emotional to understand it.
He was a normal person, and now is not!
If the boston stores don't want to sell it it is their right. Suppressing other opinions is a great trait.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ah ha!! The bomber! He already has a Dreamy Jahar is Innocent Facebook Page!! Those morons who think he's dreamy and cute will buy it, while the "old farts" will grumble, and there will be a bit of clever tension there...it'll cause a little controversy, too, and that will drive sales!
That's what they were thinking. They didn't realize that people from New England don't care for being used in that fashion. The blowback was bigger than they anticipated.
They wanted SOME controversy, make no mistake--just not "quite" so much.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Backfires. LOL.
MADem
(135,425 posts)elsewhere."
And it hasn't backfired. They are getting an enormous amount of support in the region for their stance.
I'm sure if you get off your behind you'll find a place selling this magazine, if you simply must have it. It just won't be one of those New England based businesses, many of whom have a presence at the Marathon, that are personally offended by this--as is THEIR right to so be.
I'll also wager that most of the people crying here about "Waaah, a BAN!!!" are not regular patrons of CVS, Walgreens, Stop n Shop, Tedeschis, etc. It's not like "their" spot for buying "their copy" of Rolling Stone has been violated. Those businesses are taking care of THEIR customers, and good for them.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)See, it's a free country--and those businesses are free to support the victims and not buy into the corporate greed behind this cheap publicity stunt.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)about this, otherwise you wouldn't continue engaging me with lame little "Lol" and "Figures" comments....through gritted teeth, I'd say!
One more time--your bitter opinion is not going to change anything.
You'll just have to adjust to that reality. I'm sure you will, in time.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)All the "laughing" in the world isn't going to change that. So "LOL" away if that's what makes you happy.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Whiners have not read the fucking article.
MADem
(135,425 posts)article isn't the problem. The picture is.
As for whining, the people doing the most of that are the ones who are mad at the businesses that won't carry the magazine.
The people who agree with the businesses' decisions to not carry the magazine are entirely content. The complainers (i.e. whiners) are the ones confusing "free speech" with the ability of a private business to decide what they want to sell.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Who is saying they have to carry it? Please post a link where someone wants to force them to.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't think they are wrong. Many people agree with me.
People who think they are wrong are just going to have to get over it.
These businesses have the right to decide what they want to sell, that is the bottom line.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)We have been reading about his background for months.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/us/massachusetts-bombers-profiles
Boston suspects: Immigrant dream to American nightmare
By Wayne Drash, Moni Basu and Tom Watkins, CNN
updated 10:49 AM EDT, Sun April 21, 2013
The background stories of the 2 brothers suspected in Boston bombing
SethSeth April 19
- See more at: http://www.thethinblueline.net/discussion/485/the-background-stories-of-the-2-brothers-suspected-in-boston-bombing/p1#sthash.G4VUeR1x.dpuf
cali
(114,904 posts)did they cover the pic on the top of the pile? Can you see it any less clearly?
but congratulations on buying into this ridiculous ginned up outrage.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Perhaps not. In fact, I'd wager that's the case.
I think the person who is "outraged" here isn't me. I don't have a need to use "LOL" or "desperate much" to make my point.
Bottom line--you aren't going to get your way. The businesses that made this decision are suppporting the victims of the bombing, even if you don't like that.
Too bad for you, I guess!
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)After reading many of the replies here, I believe that I need to go out and get some fresh air.
MADem
(135,425 posts)their own petard, or their own improvised pressure cooking device, if you will. These comments are instructive, not just about this particular issue, but they go to character, in general.
We learn a lot about people's attitudes regarding compassion, humanity, and common sense, to say nothing of their enthusiasm for pointless, boneheaded contrariness from these exchanges. I find them illustrative, actually. They believe that their anger, directed towards me, personally, with included invective, will make a difference. It won't. They think they are defending some ill-thought-out notion of "free speech," when all they are doing is taking the side of the Greedy, Profiteering, Attention-Seeking Corporate Pigs in this equation.
You can really get to know people by seeing what their reaction is to the pain and discomfiture of their fellow citizens, how their "right" to buy a crappy music magazine in a drugstore they likely never patronize is more important than the feelings of families who have been scarred for life by a tragedy at an event that has always, up to now, brought nothing but sheer joy for so many.
It can make one feel a bit besmirched, reading some of the ugly and childish commentary on this thread, but it's really all on them. Their words, their burden.
Nonetheless, I am about to go jump in a lake in a bit! The pause that refreshes...!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and always has been published every two weeks. An issue is 'on the stands' for two weeks, not for a month. I've been reading Rolling Stone since the late 70's and it is hard to accept that another long time reader would think it was a monthly magazine, as it never has been. You remember the reaction to the Manson cover, but you thought for 40 years RS was a monthly? Interesting memory you have.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I never claimed to be a subscriber, or even a terribly faithful reader. I have read enough of the things down the decades to form an opinion about them, though.
Fourteen days on a stand up magazine rack isn't one day lying flat amongst a pile of other newspapers.
I've been reading it off and on since the first issues in the late sixties, which didn't have much, if any, color in them. I have to say it was better then--less slick, less corporate, less Britney-Beiber-licious...it was more about the music, with a bit about the culture and the current scene. For many years I did not live in America and didn't have access to it unless someone brought one packed in their things, and handed it round. That was before the "internet" mind you.
But hey, no one is suggesting--not for one second, mind--that you eschew the "Squeeeeeeee!!!!! Isn't He The Cutest" publication-- if that's your thing. By all means, PLEASE, read on. Be My Guest! Go for it! Have fun! Just don't go looking for the "Dreamy Jahar" edition at CVS or Stop and Shop, because, no matter how much you snark, poke, prod, goad, bait, or otherwise carp at me, you ain't gonna find it there...!
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)Such hysteria over nothing. It's like people freaking out because a store employee said "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Xmas." The guy was a royal idiot and murderer, and he's never going to see outside prison walls again. So what if a mag published a nice-looking pic on the cover? Nobody is going to feel an ounce of sympathy because of it. Nobody will feel any less angry over the death and pain he caused. This is such a blitheringly stupid non-issue.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Orrex
(63,213 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Not condemning a magazine for journalism would be a good start, probably. "We are upset because the bomber doesn't look like an obvious psychopath or twisted monster!" ...which is kind of the entire point, that no, he doesn't, so...how did a seemingly promising and well-liked kid go from being normal to being a suspected killer?
And quite honestly I've seen much, MUCH more outrage from people who've taken it upon themselves to be outraged on behalf of the victims of the bombings and their families.
Why do I suspect that there'd be a lot less outrage if they'd edited the photo to make him look more, well, like a stereotypical Middle Easterner? Like, say, this, for instance:
?175
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Outside of asshole conservative commentators, I haven't seen anyone objecting to the article, which by all accounts it excellent.
Instead, the objection is to the magazine's obvious, transparent and successful effort to generate controversy and sensationalism by using that particular photo for the cover. Would the article have been less excellent if they'd run a different cover?
And why does Rolling Stone now take its cues from the NYT?
MADem
(135,425 posts)The magazine reflects HIS tastes, HIS interests, and HIS worldview--it's a very personal effort--albeit a corporate one--in that regard.
He's a geezer (and before you think I am insulting him, I am one too), he thinks that popular music begins and ends with the stuff HE likes, he gives short shrift to minority and "pop" artists (except when his hand is forced--e.g. they make more money than Elvis or the Beatles), and his grip on the whole "Voice of the Music Industry" thing is gone, what with the arrival of magazines geared to today's music, like VIBE and HIP HOP and BLENDER, that actually put black people on the cover without them having to die tragically and too young (Tupac) or insult teenagers at music award ceremonies (Kanye).
He's wanting to branch out, I think, because he's lost the bubble on what is fresh in the music industry. The magazine's musical focus is pretty much about what someone who was one of the "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" crowd in the late sixties likes. That's great for older readers, not so great for the kids. He has the disdain of his generation for what was termed "Top Forty Crap" back in the day, stuff that has only become "acceptable listening" forty years on. I think his readership has flattened, too--young people who are music fans (and most young people are) just don't look to RS the way previous generations did for music industry-centric business.
It wants to become more of an "omnibus" magazine, but there are so many flavors of that kind of publication already that it could end up in worse shape than it is now. I think the editor - publisher is at a bit of a crossroads right now, even if he doesn't quite realize it yet.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)There are some here in Boston that no longer have limbs to pull their knickers up.
So.....
Really?
msongs
(67,413 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)My own 14 year old LIBERAL son said the same damn thing, in so many words. He said de-regulation at the Texas plant that exploded the same week killed far more people and deserved far more media attention.
Obama - AND our lameass Congress - haven't fixed that.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)So, to answer your question regarding the 'thumbs down' ...
There are some folks on the internet that never have anything good to say about Our President - only negative things.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But, zoning is only part of it. The federal government sets regulations for fertilizer (and other industrial) plants and those regulations weren't being followed. As a result of our lazy-ass, pro-corporate Congress and a president who doesn't play enough hardball with those jokers, the fertilizer plant wasn't properly fined, shut down or in any way reprimanded.
I realize Obama can't do everything on his own, but when he keeps insisting on putting pro-corporate appointees in positions that effect the working men and women of this country - and their children - I also have to include him in the blame.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)So, there would be different regulations for a storage facility as opposed to an actual plant that creates fertilizer.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But, it should have had a proper sprinkler system.
We're not really arguing, btw. I'm just frustrated.
Hell, at least your state is on the blue uptake. Mine is still diving into ultra red-state hell (Tennessee).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the President. This kind of psychotic crap is proof otherwise.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Jesus, go the fuck away.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)I have to thank you for your sincere compassion and empathy for our great state and her citizens.
Your statement is tells me a lot about you.
olddots
(10,237 posts)as was the Manson article , Blame photo offset printing but not the messenger in this case ----sure it's tasteless and tacky in a tasteless and tacky cruel world .
Iggo
(47,558 posts)dogknob
(2,431 posts)and continue the belief that all murderous monsters are brown and ugly.
Got it... that, unfortunately, does not work.
Losing a friend to a monster like that is terrible. I am sorry.
I want to know what we can do to stop this violent insanity... that is not our tried-and-true failed policy of utter denial out of respect for the victims. It does not work. The problem is getting worse.
Cha
(297,275 posts)the bomber's stupid pic on the cover of RS, she.
thankfully there are a lot of chains stores who decided not to help them sell their sensationalism.
Decision on facebook..
"The cover photo that has drawn all the outrage shows a doe-eyed Tsarnaev with a mop of curly hair, in a hazy sepia tone. The accused terrorist has been given the rock-star treatment by the magazine, many have said."
Much more..
http://business.time.com/2013/07/17/drugstores-supermarkets-boycott-rolling-stone-over-boston-bomber-cover/
Mahalo for reposting the tragic, inhumane, awfullness that the bombers were responsible for, she. Get some perspective here.
Logical
(22,457 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)No one is required to buy it, read it, or sell it. Yet, everyone is free to do those things.
"Suppressing the press" happens here quite often.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)My son works with a magazine merchandiser, and every store has told him to not even open the pack, to send it straight back. That just might have been the worst mistake that Rolling Stone ever made in the life of the magazine. We all love freedom of speech, but this pushed the envelope way to far. The decision may have rolled the mag right out of business, as a matter of fact.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I usually just do all my reading online but I've always liked Rolling Stone from way back and I would be extremely sorry to see them go, evidently they need some support, thanks for letting me know.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Eventually we'll be left with Fox News and the Wall Street Journal for all our news and opinion, perhaps then some people will be happy because *they* would certainly never do such a thing as put a terrorist on the cover.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)And excuse me for opening my mouth and expressing my opinion.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Only because people are telling us we can't. We're all "freedomy" like that.
I've already read the article and found it fascinating.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Rolling Stone will be fine, they just got a shit ton of publicity. Even bad publicity is good for sales. Sorry, just the way the PR machine rolls.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Boston for many years banned films and literary works the local prigs deemed objectionable.
The following works were banned in Boston:
A Farewell To Arms, by Earnest Hemingway, banned in a magazine series.
The Children's Hour, by Lilian Hellman.
Waiting For Lefty, by Clifford Odets
Strange Fruit, by Lillian Smith (interracial love, banned)
Naked Lunch, by William S Burroughs
Wake Up, Little Susie, a song by the Everly Brothers
Here is a nice slideshow of things Boston found objectionable over the years:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/galleries/2010/8_8_10_banned_in_boston/
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)The Everly Brothers went to school with my Mom here in good ole Knoxville, TN. That song was a huge hit down here in "non-freedom" land.
That is so ironic!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Some New England based business have decided not to sell it. You'll find someone willing to sell it, you just won't be able to buy it at those businesses that chose to support the victims of the bombing.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)They'll be back to what they know best on the cover next week. Snoop, TSwizzle or Katy Perry's chest. Now that I'd subscribe to.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Hmmm....
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It was a way to get some publicity (free, too) during a weak month for sales.
They aren't going under. The publisher owns US WEEKLY too--he'll never starve.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)You know - hard copy mags to take onto the beach or out by a pool so you don't run the risk of dropping your tablet/iPad/Smart Phone into the water.
I would think July and November. July for the reason I gave and November for the Christmas gift ads.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Easier to put in a sack to take to the beach, perhaps...?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Seriously, I guess I'm old school. Hubby wanted to buy me a tablet (a Nook, a Cranny, whatever) and I said, "no." My favorite places to read are the bathtub, the pool and the beach. I'd rather have a cheap paperback that will just dry out in wrinkles if I drop it in rather than his spend $200 for me to ruin something.
P.S. Your allusion to my supporting alleged terrorists is unbecoming. You allege to be a liberal, but you can't carry on an informed conversation about the selling of magazines at particular times of the year without bitch-slapping me with anti-Constitutional writs. You're entitled to your opinion and I am, as well.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Supporting terrorists? Anti-Constitutional writs?
I don't know what you're talking about...
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)While it's good that retailers are making a choice not to sell that particular issue, next month it will be back on the news stand as if nothing happened.
frylock
(34,825 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I'm only saying that retailers have a right not to put the magazine on their shelves. Since retail sales are a small part of their circulation it won't matter financially.
cali
(114,904 posts)He's been publishing RS, which contains some of the best political reporting in this country for over 40 years. And RS is going nowhere.
Get used to it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's not going to starve.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)All I did was tell what I knew. (What my son told me yesterday.) Should I have kept my mouth shut? Apparently so. I guess if I know something for sure, I just need to keep my mouth shut, right? And if I do indeed do that from now on, then MY freedom of speech has been thwarted. No?
cali
(114,904 posts)the same as telling you to shut up. I think this outrage about the RS cover, is stupid bullshit, but you're free to say whatever the fuck you want about it, as am I.
MADem
(135,425 posts)to the cover are 'wrong' or 'rightwingers' or 'opposed to -- waaaah -- free speech' or something along those lines. Having compassion for the victims of this bombing, being offended by the glorification of the asshole who caused all that damage, all that makes one "uncool" and insufficiently "edgy" for the Eff Yew crowd that believes that being crude, abrasive and insulting somehow makes them more "authentic."
You can't teach couth past a certain age, I think. People either have it or they don't.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Which I've been procrastinating about for a while.
RS is one of the very very very few places where real journalism still exists in our failing democracy.
Phil1934
(49 posts)We have seen it on every topic lately. It is a picture of the bomber. There is no background. How is he portrayed as a rock star? Because he has long tousled hair? It is a picture of the bomber with no rock star enhancements.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Some people would rather that we only have Fox News, they would never do something so unpatriotic as making a terrorist look remotely glamorous.
Fair and balanced indeed.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)K & R
Pholus
(4,062 posts)All of these people are evil in any objective sense. These people caused a lot of suffering too. Should their likenesses also be hidden?
MADem
(135,425 posts)politics and culture article.
cali
(114,904 posts)It doesn't do the odd politics and culture article. It publishes those stories consistently and has for over 40 years. It's something Wenner is passionate about. Do you know who their first political editor was? Dick Goodwin, author of the war on poverty speeches for LBJ, special counsel and speech writer to Kennedy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_N._Goodwin
Pholus
(4,062 posts)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?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)can and do censor. Boston has a very distinct history of extra governmental censorship by the Ward and Watch Society. That censorship had enormous impact on the national culture and arts scene for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_and_Ward_Society
Dash87
(3,220 posts)That's what he looked like - exactly the opposite of what people think a bomber would look like. He wasn't some ugly basement-dwelling freak - he looked like a normal person. Rolling Stone showed that there's no difference between what a terrorist looks like and what a normal person looks like. It wasn't praising him - just showing a realistic portrait and shattering our expectations.
RC
(25,592 posts)Displayed laid flat, upright, in a vending machine, for a week, a month, what ever, it is still the same picture on that issue of Rolling Stone.
People are upset that it wasn't Photoshopped to look like a typical Middle Easterner terrorist? That, in a nutshell is what the brouhaha is actually all about.
He looks like someone's typical teenager. How dare he be born without a turban on his head and a full beard. The nerve of that kid, huh? And that is what upsets some people?
How about the fact that our CIA and FBI were warned about him and his brother and the warning were checked out and ignored. Remember the NSA? Isn't that what they say their purpose is? To find and stop terrorists? That is what people should be upset about. Not a picture on an issue of a publication that has an excellent reputation for the truth. Get a grip people.
Paladin
(28,262 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)How can people be so dense as to miss the fucking point of the RS cover pic of Tsarnaev? The point is simple and should be clear: It's the contrast with who this kid was and was perceived to be by those who knew him, with what he did. Simple, eh?
Sorry that you want people who do monstrous things to look like monsters, but that's just not invariably the case.
All the sentimental playing on emotions in your op don't change that.
As for this:
Boston proved that the foundations of American government remain firm. We took comfort in the FBI press conferences. We kept trust in our great offices of state. When it came to Boston, there were no Republicans and Democrats, just American leaders.
Bullshit. It did nothing of the kind.
Those complaining about the cover are missing the point completely.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)"get tough, kid. you think this is hell? you have no idea what they put us through in the war or what you will go through over in 'nam."
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)from someone who knew Krystle Campbell. Me.
I'm from Boston, too.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17641-on-the-cover-of-the-rolling-stone
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)As an old crime journalist (cut my adult teeth on it), a connoisseur of criminal court, the ex-wife of a Muslim and the current wife of a former Bostonian Jew... I can say we all think the same way.
BTW, Krystle also is the spitting image of my best friend in high school. I gave her a cyber hug via Facebook after I saw Krystle's face.
One can both be pro-civil rights for defendants, be pro-victim and still embrace the Constitution. Just the same as I can walk, snap and chew gum at the same time.
egduj
(805 posts)so I guess freedom of press is not such a hard pill to swallow after that.
Boston strong?
My husband shuttered during the whole ordeal. His aunt and cousins still live in that area and he tried to imagine them going through what was essentially martial-law dressed up as some Goebbelsian-sounding "shelter in place" bullshit.
Ironically, my Russian-speaking husband is former Army who had both been attached to the NSA and has driven some of those armored vehicles and carried those same weapons.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)So I guess RS would be thanking you for that. I haven't read it for years, not since they did a hatchet job on Eddie Vedder, but I read the article on the surviving Boston Bomber. I'm really not getting why some people have such a problem with it that if they had their way they'd try to force RS not to have printed it. Both the cover and the article show a normal kid with everything going for him somehow getting so fucked up that he did something totally horrific. It's that contrast between the normal and the horror of what he did that makes it a good story and good cover....
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)cultural attitude toward death by tragedy, whether it's terrorism, war, murder, whatever. When everything has to stop and no one can talk about anything else but the tragedy itself -- the physical reality of it -- it becomes a morbid fetish. "Because Boston strong!" turns into a tool to silence conversations we should be having.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Terrorists can be pretty too. I don't think simply showing a photo of him is glamorizing anything. And honestly I think we need to stop stereotyping people on looks and it's good for people to know a good-looking guy can do something so horrible.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)The number of people who have already convicted Tsarnaev before he's even gone to trial.
In the absence a trial or a plea, we really don't know what all the FBI have on him. The authorities can say they have this evidence or that, but we 1.) haven't seen it all - including the alleged video and 2.) haven't heard of any mitigating factors or other evidence that might show Tsarnaev to be "not guilty."
That evidence will either come out in trial OR he'll plead to the FBI as stated without rebuttal.
I know, I know. There are victims and, as the wife of a Bostonian, I feel very, very sorry for these victims. This was no false flag and crisis actors. These people are very real.
But, I also used to cover crime for a newspaper. I've sat in court cases where you just knew the person was going to be found guilty until the very moment the jury said, "not guilty."
Look, folks, you can believe he's probably guilty - that's your prerogative as most of you aren't reporters and bound to certain rules - but the fact that the media seems to be conveniently dropping "alleged" or "suspected," as on the Rolling Stone cover, is bothersome to those of us who have seen the system up close and try to respect Constitutionally-driven "innocent until proven guilty" case law.
Even as a former reporter, I could never understood how professional reporters could try someone in their medium. I consistently used "alleged" or "suspected" whatever in my reporting. It both protects the integrity of a trial and saves the news outlet of potential slanderous guilt. Hell, George Zimmerman even sued NBC for slander before he was found "not guilty" for perceived slights.
I guess it bothers me that so many liberal-minded people take absolute stock in what the FBI and/or the media who are parroting the FBI have to say. I'm a liberal and, knowing how horrible both the FBI and the MSM have acted as the corporate take-over of America continues, I must say I question them more frequently as I age.
I'm not saying Tsarnaev is guilty or not guilty. I'm saying I have seen scant facts outside of the sensationalist reports of street fights, notes on boats, cut throats and fangirls.
Rant off
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)before he went to trial?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)However, I will admit that when that first happened, I hadn't seen the tipping point as clearly. In other words, I hadn't seen so many news people summarily call someone a "killer" or, in this case, THE "bomber," without using the words alleged or suspected before it. I'm sure it's happened before, but my point is that I'm seeing it more and more frequently with each subsequent "big-news-story" case.
I DID want Zimmerman arrested, however, if only to challenge that stupid stand-your-ground law and so that the killing of a young boy didn't go unanswered. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have referred to him as the "alleged" killer, though.
After hearing the evidence, I thought, for sure, that the jury would come back with manslaughter, but certainly not either second degree or not guilty. Thus, my point about believing someone will be found guilty until the very moment the jury says otherwise.
In this case, a young man has been arrested and a trial or plea will ensue. I just wish the media wouldn't be in such a rush to convict anyone and leave that to the courts.
I guess it's the "Nancy Gracification" our our media - flaring nostrils and all.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)let's allow the accused a fair trial" was met with scorn and derision, accusations of being a racist, an NRA stooge and a Zimmerman-lover.
The difference with Tzohar is they have him on video planting the bombs, they have his scrawled confession in the boat, they have more or less a confession from him once in custody, not to mention the crazy behavior and shootout when his brother died. Unlike with Zimmerman, people were there when the bad stuff went down. There were witnesses. "Alleged" in this case seems superfluous.
I definitely agree that the media has a hair trigger on wanting to convict people in the court of public opinion WAY before they get to a court of law. But that's not just "Nancy Gracification." That's been going on since long before that...person started "gracing" our airwaves.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Because, none of us have seen that. We've only heard about it.
They may have it and they may not. The public hasn't seen it, yet - and probably won't until trial.
And, that's my point. They probably do, but, right now, none of us know for sure.
I'm sure there have been cases where the media have behaved worse - isolated cases like the O.J. Simpson trial - but my complaint is that the media is becoming more and more and more tabloid and less and less and less informative.
(BTW, there are legitimate issues with the Boston case that aren't confined to the conspiracy theory websites. For example, I'd like to know how a gravely injured and medically-drugged teenager "confesses" to anything. And the lack of Mirandizing him for public safety is going to be a problem, legally. Since the FBI didn't just keep their questioning limited to "are there more bombs," they may have violated Tsarnaev's rights. That's why a judge came down and Mirandized him. She may have feared the FBI was going to blow the case or she heard that he'd repeatedly asked for an attorney - not sure. You can Google some legal journals for more on that - many of them have opined on it. And don't get me started on the young man shot in Florida. This case is beyond odd.)
Edited to add this: I think the media should be asking the questions I posed in parenthesis. IMHO, it's not the media's job to defend or convict anyone, in particular, who is charged with a crime, but it is their job to question the erosion of civil rights as it applies to one person because it could effect us all. I think the media did a fair job looking into the Stand Your Ground law as a result of Zimmerman, but some of them did cross the line on the question of his guilt.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)The OP makes no attempt to present an argument against the Rolling Stone cover. You can bet that this meme about how outrageous it is to have this kid's picture on the cover of RS was born on Faux News or Blimpies radio show. I see this as a naked attempt to attack RS for their emerging role as an honest outlet for Americans to get real news. The 1%'ers HATE Matt Tiabbi and the editors at RS. This manufactured outrage is nonsense.
AllINeedIsCoffee
(772 posts)is by how many copies they sell.
If it hurts their profit margins, then they won't make the same mistake again.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Its short and sweet. This was an obvious publicity stunt. No higher purpose, or any of that garbage. They are free to put whatever they want on their cover...but shame on anyone who thinks a Bostonian should sit down and shut up about it.
cali
(114,904 posts)Yes, Bostonian felt pain. and Oklahomans felt pain when they suffered a tornado and on and on. It doesn't make Bostonians special that they felt pain. It's part of life. Shitty things happen. You go on.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Cali, no one would ever wish you to "shut up".
I for one want to thank you. Your kind words to the people of our great state, the empathy that you feel is overwhelming to say the least. Your kindness and generosity is felt in your posts here.
I have to run now and make some calls to my friends. I plan to tell them to suck it up, they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get over it.
cali
(114,904 posts)Look, there is something that I find really odd about people using their pain to feel important. Maybe I grew up with far too much of "keep a stiff upper lip", "discretion is the better part of valour", etc. That doesn't mean that I don't feel for the people who were killed and injured in Boston and their family and friends. That doesn't extend so much to people who didn't know or love them, just because they happen to be from the same geographical location. Yes, I understand the sentiment of solidarity and feeling as if this happened to the entire city or the entire state.
The outrage over this cover strikes me as all too unthinking. It doesn't glorify Tsarnaev.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)if I wished you to shut up I would put you on ignore. Actually I don't have anyone on ignore.
Just to enlighten you from those of us in the same "geographical location". This goes far beyond the deaths and injuries that day. Their are friends of mine that worked on Boylston St that day at the sight of the second blast. After ushering hundreds of people out their back entrance, they themselves were evacuated from the building. Two of them left holding hands, only to watch in shock as Jeff Bauman was wheeled by in chair. Maybe you saw the picture. He lost both his legs.
Let's not forget the doctors and nurse that preformed triage in a medical tent set up to treat people for exhaustion. Add to that police, firefighters, orderlies, runners and a host of others that were traumatized by what happened that day. There are few in our small state that do not know someone involved that day. You act as this is a small isolated incident. Only a few were affected by this? Wrong, you are completely and utterly wrong.
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.
cali
(114,904 posts)so maybe they didn't.
The comparison to Stern is so silly. go read the article.
And no man's inhumanity to man is just as unavoidable as any other act of nature. Are humans part of nature? Why yes, yes they are. Have humans been doing deplorable things to other humans since before written history? Indubitably.
Stopping the destructive acts of humanity is no more avoidable than stopping a tornado
I hope you can grasp that- though I doubt it.
wercal
(1,370 posts)And no, I won't read the article. That would involve my giving Rolling Stone positive reinforcement for their cover. I'm not in the mood to do that. My perusal stops at the cover...which screams shock jock journalism, just like Stern. But hey, that's a silly comparison...so maybe you could explain to me why this cover was necessary. Did they need the cover to publish the article? No. Was it the only available photo of the guy? No...and its probably 90% air brush. So, why...oh why...did they use that cover? Maybe, just maybe, it was meant to shock and create alot of buzz, and sell alot of magazines. If not, since I'm 'silly', surely you can poitn me to the real reason....probably some high browed journalistic reason I can't comprehend.
And nope, I guess I just can't 'grasp' that a random act of nature is gosh darn just like some punk disaffected teenager who goes and kills random people for sport. I guess I'm just not sophisticated enough...
....must be because I don't read enough articles in Rolling Stone.
cali
(114,904 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)If you can squeeze it in beteeen insults.
If the cover wasn't meant to shock, what was its purpose.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)well said.
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)I think Rolling Stone's cover is in very bad taste. Making this guy in to some counter-culture pop star - at least visually - is a terrible idea.
cali
(114,904 posts)First of all, follow along. Others (not RS) have treated Tsarnaev as a "counter culture pop star". this article did nothing of the kind and neither did putting a pic of him on the cover- just as countless other newspapers have.
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)Crap comparison or not, I stick by the opinion that it was all in poor taste.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)call him "THE BOMBER" and a "monster" on the front cover.
Did Rolling Stone score a coup? Where they actually able to both convict him and glorify him in one fell swoop?
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)The "monster bomber" stuff was preemptive damage control, IMO. They knew what they were doing.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Heck, even if they had used the pictures of his arrest (which didn't come out until after the controversy), someone would scream that it shows a "cute" teenager injured by "big, bad" policemen. The image they used fit the the story they published.
What? Are we supposed to never look at him?
Ironically, it does seem like the authorities have been fighting tooth and nail to keep his visage away from the public eye. The state trooper who released the arrest photos may get fired, there have been no booking photos released, his attorneys have had to file motions to get guards to take pictures of him so they can monitor his recovery and the case is being tried in federal court, where cameras are not allowed.
I do agree Rolling Stone knew what it was doing, but I can't agree that it wasn't without legitimate purpose.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Why?
Because the point of the article, which I doubt anyone upset over the cover even bothered to read, is that Tsarnaev was an all-American kid who got swept into radical Islamic terrorism. How did that happen? What caused this friendly, popular kid to fall so far and commit a horrendous act of murder?
Let me be clear: burying your heads in the sand and getting outraged over the RS article is more a spit in the face to the victims of the bombing than anything. If you're not willing to understand how terrorism recruits young men and how someone can be driven to commit these sorts of acts, you're shitting on the graves of the Boston victims and every other potential victim that could be saved if we try to identify and root out terrorism at its source.
thucythucy
(8,066 posts)and I don't think it was all that good. It certainly didn't answer any of the questions posed on the cover. And I don't see how it does anything at all "to identify and root out terrorism at its source."
Yeah, the kid's family life was fucked up, but so are the lives of millions of kids across the country. What made THIS particular kid go the route he did is still left up in the air. As I read it, the basic answer seemed to be, "His life was tough. Also, his big brother made him do it." Well, lots of people have tough lives and fucked up big brothers, Rolling Stone writer Mikel Gilmore among them (read his book "Shot in the Heart" and you'll see what I mean). They don't go out and set off bombs in the middle of crowded events.
The only NEW information contained in the article, as far as I could see, were a dozen or so gushing statements from anonymous friends, all along the lines of "He was such a sweet guy. What a dreamboat! Always so great to be around." Plus, he cried for a while after he woke up from surgery. What a fantastic insight into his personality! Then too, even the RS writer says, "But we don't know WHY he cried." Possibly because he was in pain?
This is "cutting edge" journalism in the same vein as all the stories we've seen over the years quoting folks saying, "He was such a quiet guy. Lovely neighbor. Family man. No one would ever suspect he would...." I mean, haven't we seen this basic theme a hundred times before?
I agree, we need to figure out why people do these sorts of terrible things. But this article doesn't do the job. It doesn't come close. And it certainly didn't merit being the cover story.
I expect more from Rolling Stone. As a long time subscriber, I know they often times do a great job covering serious issues.
This story wasn't one of those times.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)to make you happy?
FYI, that is HOW THIS KID LOOKS. And yes, he is still a very young man...
The better question you should be asking, not that I expect this, how would a young man who almost looks like Dylan (that photo reminded me of a young Dylan)... in fact, a young man that looks like every body else... become radicalized?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)This was the whole point of the article.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"I would rather be banned in Boston than read anywhere else because when you are banned in Boston, you are read everywhere else."
"I want to be intelligent, even if I do live in Boston." an anonymous Bostonian, 1929
http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?SKU=5112
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Awesome to see you basically slamming one of the most liberal states in the country by quoting a bunch of shit from 80 years ago.
Heck, we can't all be enlightened like they are in NC or TX I guess.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)ago. How "liberal" or "englightened" were Bostonians then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_busing_crisis
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)That's a key word. I'm sure I can go back 100, 500, or 1000 years and find your favorite group of the enlightened to shit on for bad acts.
Seriously, you wanna keep piling on the Northeast right now? We're not up here repealing people's rights on a daily fucking basis.
You're welcome.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)But now the angry "Shit on Boston" folks are coming out of the woodwork to declare it a police state, a gulag, etc....
Mind you, these are probably people who have governors like Rick Perry, Pat McCrorey, Rick Scott and Mike Pence running their lives, so excuse the bitterness.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I am guessing some people are REALLY upset by the cover, because the kid does not look like OBL and they are reminded that terrorists aren't just 'those people' overseas.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)They turned that murderer into a rock star.
Sick bastards.
frylock
(34,825 posts)do you feel the same about the 9/11 porn we're still subject to 12 years later?
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Yes, I do feel the same outrage when 9/11 is used. I hated every time the GOPers shouted it out to justify what they were doing. They ran on it with glee and sent us to war with the mantra.
I am horrified every time Rush or the Evangelicals blame gays and tell us we deserve any disaster that occurs.
I am horrified when the Holocaust is used to blame the victims. It makes me sick that some equate This President to Hitler and the Nazis. It is stupid and minimizes the victims.
And yes I hate that people would bash the victims of Boston.
frylock
(34,825 posts)this is some ginned up bullshit, period.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Have you read any of the posts here? They bash Boston left and right. We should suck it up.
You may have missed all the posts here at DU when this was happening back in April. Boston took a thrashing.
There are many victims here, just like 9/11. It wasn't just about the poor souls that were killed. It was about everyone one that was touched by this in one way or another.
The lack of compassion is horrifying.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)A complete lapse of good judgement on the part of RS's editors -- who deserve to lose their jobs.
I empathize with the RS rank-and-file staff who are going to be adversely affected by their editors' extremely poor decision making (i.e. stupidity).
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)... and the events made us realize that every one of us, no matter where, no matter who, no mater when, is just a hair's breadth away from tragedy, injury, and death.
We are now three months past the anguish. We need to begin to escape the emotion and understand the causes, the complexities, the motivations, and, perhaps, the preventable circumstances that led to the tragedy.
Would the Rolling Stone cover have 'helped' us more if the perpetrator's picture had been slashed by a razor blade? ... or if a bullet wound hand been photoshopped into the forehead of the cover photo. I don't know...
Look for answers to stop the next tragedy, not for excuses for the last ...