Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    The article might be worth the read but the cover is in bad taste

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    Mayor Menino had a great response in a letter to RS founder Jann Wenner.

    He called the cover"ill-conceived, at best" and said it overshadowed the story it was designed to sell.

    He also wrote, "Among those we lost, those who survived, and those who help carry them forward  there are artists and musicians and dancers and writers. They have dreams and plans. They struggle to survive. The survivors of the Boston attacks deserve the Rolling Stone cover stories, though I no longer feel Rolling Stone deserves them.".

                                                                

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    "Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?"


    no

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to MrCricket's comment:

    "Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?"


    no



    Guess you have not been paying attention.

    Happens when one is always in broadcast mode.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to MrCricket's comment:

     

    "Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?"


    no

     



    Guess you have not been paying attention.

     

    Happens when one is always in broadcast mode.



    oh, you're guessing... what else is new? Cool

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to Sheeple-Nation's comment:

    One of their top journalists, Michael Hastings, who wrote an article that caused the firing of Gneral McChrystal, was "killed" in a car accident shortly after emailing friends he was going under ground to break a monstrous story about the US SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.

    Witnesses said they heard an explosion and wathced as the car slammed into the tree.

     

    The government illegally has his body creamated in direct defiance of his wife's wishes.

     

    His wife publicly states that she thinks he was murdered and is hiring privatre detectives to investigate.

     

    His wife now desperately pleas with all alternative journalists she gave intereviews to, to take the sinterviews down from Youtube.

     

    The same holds true of Mobile U track coach Al Steveson, who freely told a local TV station about the loudspeakers telling everyone to "be calm" it was all "just a drill" immediatley before the blasts.

     

    But the terrified sheeple will not allow the possibilty that they've been played for fools, to be processed by their brainwashed grey matter. They simply cannot ever even attempt to address the topic of any post that "does not compute' in their mentally ill world.

     



    Hastings was preparing to break another news story and then he's whacked. His article about McChrystal was spot on. Of course, most wingnuts didn't read the article or Hasting's book, but McChrystal was one of the generals that covered up the truth about the death of Pat Tillman. So much for "Duty, Honor and Country" by McChrystal.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    The article might be worth the read but the cover is in bad taste



    Did you see the interview of your president Kelly? He had a few words to say about it.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    No, I think the parochial reaction to it is more disgusting than anything and reminds me of the silliness surrounding where to bury Tamerlan, as though Massachusetts soild would be fouled by his burial.  The cover is what it is, and the article is not a trying to paint a sympathetic picture.  Covers are used to attract eyeballs, to generate discussion and interest from a passing glance.  The cover says absolutely nothing about anything.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?


    But when has facts had anything to do with the bizarre world you people live in. Black is white...if the media tells you it is. And NOT ONE OF YOU even blinks.

    Not sure if you're aware, but WE LIVE IN THE SAME WORLD! I love how you never break from character, true to your fictional character until the end. The way you speak, it reminds me of Dr. Evil, but you need to go MWAAAAhh, MWAAAAhh at the end. Try it next time. 

           

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    Not trying to paint a sympathetic picture???

    "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster"

    THAT isn't trying to paint a sympathetic picture? My god...

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Not trying to paint a sympathetic picture???

    "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster"

    THAT isn't trying to paint a sympathetic picture? My god...

     



    How silly of me.  Typically one creates sympathy for another by calling them a BOMBER and monster in GIANT BOLD TYPE on the cover of widely distributed magazine.  Have you never heard of "juxtaposition"?   

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?


    btw, The picture on the cover is bad enough, but the article is even worse imo. Placing no blame on him whatsoever, and all the blame on society and social upbringing. The magazine and the editor should be embarrassed.

    But...when's the last time anyone talked about Rolling Stone, and that's all that matters to them, and they got what they wanted. How about a nice sympathetic twelve thousand word story about Whitey for the September issue. Got to keep those magazines moving off the shelves.    

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Not trying to paint a sympathetic picture???

    "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster"

    THAT isn't trying to paint a sympathetic picture? My god...

     

     



    How silly of me.  Typically one creates sympathy for another by calling them a BOMBER and monster in GIANT BOLD TYPEon the cover of widely distributed magazine.  Have you never heard of "juxtaposition"?   

     

     



    My god...you're kidding right? He was "failed" by his family...he "fell" into radical Islam. 

    That's trying to paint a sympathetic picture. I don't blame you for not waiting to see that...you can't help it. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    WDYWN just proved my point. No other cover of the other animals stated anything about being "failed" or "falling" into terrorism.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    Not trying to paint a sympathetic picture???

    "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster"

    THAT isn't trying to paint a sympathetic picture? My god...

     

     

     



    How silly of me.  Typically one creates sympathy for another by calling them a BOMBER and monster in GIANT BOLD TYPEon the cover of widely distributed magazine.  Have you never heard of "juxtaposition"?   

     

     

     

     



    My god...you're kidding right? He was "failed" by his family...he "fell" into radical Islam. 

     

    That's trying to paint a sympathetic picture. I don't blame you for not waiting to see that...you can't help it. 



    Language can be a powerful tool, and as should be readily apparent to anyone with a few brain cells to rub together, no one is born a terrorist.  Media has ALWAYS engaged in numerous stories, articles, books, and other scholarly efforts to unwind the person at the center of heinous acts, to understand where they came from, their motivations, how they became what they became etc.  

    That might involve ideas that some find uncomfortable because by necessity these efforts humanize a person to some degree.  That however, is no reason not to break down the villains we encounter because simply writing off these terrorists, mass murderers, and psychopaths as "crazy" or whatever else deprives us of the chance to understand events beyond simply recounting that X happened because Y did it.  Our understanding of 9/11 is better informed because we have explored Al Qaeda beyond Osama and dove into the background of his people, his commanders, the structure of his organization, where opportunities were missed, and drawn lessons from them that hopefully will inform our decisions in the future.  

    Its easy to declare Tsarnaev the boogie man and wish for his promt death or incarceration at our most inhospitable prison, and I feel the same way, with one exception - he isnt the boogie man, he is just a man and for some reason he participated in the events on 4/15 that wounded hundreds and killed several.  And I want to know why, and I want to know why beyond the obvious "he was a terrorist".  If people can't wrap their head around a little nuance, then they can choose not to read it, but the whole boycott and uproar makes little sense to me.  We should want to know everything we can about this guy.  

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Not trying to paint a sympathetic picture???

    "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster"

    THAT isn't trying to paint a sympathetic picture? My god...

     

     

     

     

     



    How silly of me.  Typically one creates sympathy for another by calling them a BOMBER and monster in GIANT BOLD TYPEon the cover of widely distributed magazine.  Have you never heard of "juxtaposition"?   

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    My god...you're kidding right? He was "failed" by his family...he "fell" into radical Islam. 

     

     

     

    That's trying to paint a sympathetic picture. I don't blame you for not waiting to see that...you can't help it. 

     

     



    Language can be a powerful tool, and as should be readily apparent to anyone with a few brain cells to rub together, no one is born a terrorist.  Media has ALWAYS engaged in numerous stories, articles, books, and other scholarly efforts to unwind the person at the center of heinous acts, to understand where they came from, their motivations, how they became what they became etc.  

     

     

    That might involve ideas that some find uncomfortable because by necessity these efforts humanize a person to some degree.  That however, is no reason not to break down the villains we encounter because simply writing off these terrorists, mass murderers, and psychopaths as "crazy" or whatever else deprives us of the chance to understand events beyond simply recounting that X happened because Y did it.  Our understanding of 9/11 is better informed because we have explored Al Qaeda beyond Osama and dove into the background of his people, his commanders, the structure of his organization, where opportunities were missed, and drawn lessons from them that hopefully will inform our decisions in the future.  

    Its easy to declare Tsarnaev the boogie man and wish for his promt death or incarceration at our most inhospitable prison, and I feel the same way, with one exception - he isnt the boogie man, he is just a man and for some reason he participated in the events on 4/15 that wounded hundreds and killed several.  And I want to know why, and I want to know why beyond the obvious "he was a terrorist".  If people can't wrap their head around a little nuance, then they can choose not to read it, but the whole boycott and uproar makes little sense to me.  We should want to know everything we can about this guy.  

     



    Wanting to know WHY is one thing. Saying he was "failed" and "fell" is bullsh!t. Plenty of people have sh!tty family life who don't go and set off bombs killing and maiming people. There was a LOT of thought put into what they did. 

     

    Why didn't Rolling Stones do a similar type picture and headline for Adam Lanza? Columbine shooters? McVeigh? etc.

     



    What does it matter?  You have already taken a 12,000 word article and based on TWO words, in the byline, deduced an intent by RS to make people feel sorry for Tsarnaev!  You are literally judging a story by its cover, missing the forest because of two trees, using emotional response as proof positive that someone is up to no good.  Please.  There was no outcry when the NY times used that same picture on its front page.   What this boils down to for a lot of people is they don't get that RS has been doing long form investigative journalism IN EVERY ISSUE, for years and that sometimes those pieces get the cover as opposed to a musician or celebrity.  This isn't some isolated event, they are writing the story because it is a current event.    

    And for the record Adam Lanza was on the cover of several periodicals as was McVeigh, and as posted above so were some of histories most murderous and genocidal maniacs.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    Interesting...not one foul word yet my post was removed.

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Not trying to paint a sympathetic picture???

    "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster"

    THAT isn't trying to paint a sympathetic picture? My god...

     

     

     

     

     

     



    How silly of me.  Typically one creates sympathy for another by calling them a BOMBER and monster in GIANT BOLD TYPEon the cover of widely distributed magazine.  Have you never heard of "juxtaposition"?   

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    My god...you're kidding right? He was "failed" by his family...he "fell" into radical Islam. 

     

     

     

     

    That's trying to paint a sympathetic picture. I don't blame you for not waiting to see that...you can't help it. 

     

     

     



    Language can be a powerful tool, and as should be readily apparent to anyone with a few brain cells to rub together, no one is born a terrorist.  Media has ALWAYS engaged in numerous stories, articles, books, and other scholarly efforts to unwind the person at the center of heinous acts, to understand where they came from, their motivations, how they became what they became etc.  

     

     

     

    That might involve ideas that some find uncomfortable because by necessity these efforts humanize a person to some degree.  That however, is no reason not to break down the villains we encounter because simply writing off these terrorists, mass murderers, and psychopaths as "crazy" or whatever else deprives us of the chance to understand events beyond simply recounting that X happened because Y did it.  Our understanding of 9/11 is better informed because we have explored Al Qaeda beyond Osama and dove into the background of his people, his commanders, the structure of his organization, where opportunities were missed, and drawn lessons from them that hopefully will inform our decisions in the future.  

    Its easy to declare Tsarnaev the boogie man and wish for his promt death or incarceration at our most inhospitable prison, and I feel the same way, with one exception - he isnt the boogie man, he is just a man and for some reason he participated in the events on 4/15 that wounded hundreds and killed several.  And I want to know why, and I want to know why beyond the obvious "he was a terrorist".  If people can't wrap their head around a little nuance, then they can choose not to read it, but the whole boycott and uproar makes little sense to me.  We should want to know everything we can about this guy.  

     

     



    Wanting to know WHY is one thing. Saying he was "failed" and "fell" is bullsh!t. Plenty of people have sh!tty family life who don't go and set off bombs killing and maiming people. There was a LOT of thought put into what they did. 

     

     

    Why didn't Rolling Stones do a similar type picture and headline for Adam Lanza? Columbine shooters? McVeigh? etc.

     

     



    What does it matter?  You have already taken a 12,000 word article and based on TWO words, in the byline, deduced an intent by RS to make people feel sorry for Tsarnaev!  You are literally judging a story by its cover, missing the forest because of two trees, using emotional response as proof positive that someone is up to no good.

    I actually read the article. So it's not based JUST on the cover.

     

     Please.  There was no outcry when the NY times used that same picture on its front page.

     I don't care about the picture. Which is why I didn't care about the picture in NYT. Which is also why I haven't said one word about his picture. Everything I have been saying is around the sympathy card

     

      What this boils down to for a lot of people is they don't get that RS has been doing long form investigative journalism IN EVERY ISSUE, for years and that sometimes those pieces get the cover as opposed to a musician or celebrity.  This isn't some isolated event, they are writing the story because it is a current event.    

    Missing the point. It's the sympathetic view that I don't like. Thought I had explained that already

    And for the record Adam Lanza was on the cover of several periodicals as was McVeigh, and as posted above so were some of histories most murderous and genocidal maniacs.  

    Yup and as I pointed out.....NONE of those covers had sympathetic words on the cover. So again....it's not the picture...it's not that they are doing a story..it's the SYMPATHETIC spin I don't care for.

    More importantly I asked why didn't ROLLING STONES do similar type stories about Lanza, McVeigh, Columbine, etc. They didn't which you so aptly confirmed.



     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Anybody else disgusted with Rolling Stones Magazine ?

    You are infering intent, and thats your opinion, but stimply because you think that is the case doesn't make it so.  I read the article and I don't see any attempt at creating a sympathetic story.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share