Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Rolling Stone cover - Boston Bomber


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
207 replies to this topic

#196 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,765
  • Reputation: 2,581
HUDDLER

Posted 20 July 2013 - 01:23 PM

And really, Rolling Stone isnt a political magazine?  poo it would be easier to argue its not a music magazine

 

I'm starting to think the only think people know about Rolling Stone is that one time Jim Morrison was on the cover

 

This!

 

RS November 1968 ran a story about drug use in the Army along with three other issues during their first year in publication that had political cover stories. That was 1968...

 

...45 years later and people still think RS is just a bunch of hippie stuff about drugs, taking down "The Man" and other counter culture propaganda.

 



#197 SmootsDaddy89

SmootsDaddy89

    Just Say No To Boo

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 10,441
  • Reputation: 990
SUPPORTER

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:20 PM

Most of them probably think it's literally a magazine about The Rolling Stones.



#198 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 34,900
  • Reputation: 8,969
HUDDLER

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:46 PM

I also don't think using pictures of bloody victims is appropriate either, but I posted those to make a point. Those other magazines, that all of you are saying, "well they printed covers of Tsarnev too" at least presented both sides.

I think also for all of you saying this is false outrage, if you'll look back at comments I made after the Boston bombings and the Colorado theater shooting that I criticised both print and TV media for their coverage of the accused, but don't let that stop your mocking.

My point stands, your righteous indignation is fine, but no one else's is...

This isn't a discussion. People like delhommey and Cantrell don't want discussion, they want to see who can yell the loudest to shout down every dissenting opinion.

Have at it...

#199 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,711
  • Reputation: 1,377
HUDDLER

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:53 PM

I also don't think using pictures of bloody victims is appropriate either, but I posted those to make a point. Those other magazines, that all of you are saying, "well they printed covers of Tsarnev too" at least presented both sides.

I think also for all of you saying this is false outrage, if you'll look back at comments I made after the Boston bombings and the Colorado theater shooting that I criticised both print and TV media for their coverage of the accused, but don't let that stop your mocking.

My point stands, your righteous indignation is fine, but no one else's is...

This isn't a discussion. People like delhommey and Cantrell don't want discussion, they want to see who can yell the loudest to shout down every dissenting opinion.

Have at it...

 

projection.jpg

 

remember, this is coming from the same person who called this thread a "liberal serial killer love fest"



#200 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,542
  • Reputation: 2,086
HUDDLER

Posted 20 July 2013 - 03:04 PM

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev bombed the Boston Marathon.  He is a mad man, an animal, a monster! 

 

Apparently, Dzhokhar can be portrayed as any of those things by the MSM without a peep from the general public, even though we all know those statements are patently false.

 

However, what we can't do is promote the narrative of how human his behavior was that tragic day in Boston. 

 

He is a human being, yet his actions were inhumane.  Doesn't make much sense does it? 

 

The truth is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's actions at the Boston Marathon were all too human and that is the real problem people are having a hard time dealing with, not a picture. 

 

 

 

 



#201 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 20 July 2013 - 05:06 PM

I also don't think using pictures of bloody victims is appropriate either, but I posted those to make a point. Those other magazines, that all of you are saying, "well they printed covers of Tsarnev too" at least presented both sides.

I think also for all of you saying this is false outrage, if you'll look back at comments I made after the Boston bombings and the Colorado theater shooting that I criticised both print and TV media for their coverage of the accused, but don't let that stop your mocking.

My point stands, your righteous indignation is fine, but no one else's is...

This isn't a discussion. People like delhommey and Cantrell don't want discussion, they want to see who can yell the loudest to shout down every dissenting opinion.

Have at it...

 

So you're saying that all the anger at Rolling Stone in this thread is just misplaced anger at the news media in general?



#202 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,778
  • Reputation: 2,457
Moderators

Posted 21 July 2013 - 01:13 AM

I also don't think using pictures of bloody victims is appropriate either, but I posted those to make a point. Those other magazines, that all of you are saying, "well they printed covers of Tsarnev too" at least presented both sides.

I think also for all of you saying this is false outrage, if you'll look back at comments I made after the Boston bombings and the Colorado theater shooting that I criticised both print and TV media for their coverage of the accused, but don't let that stop your mocking.

My point stands, your righteous indignation is fine, but no one else's is...

This isn't a discussion. People like delhommey and Cantrell don't want discussion, they want to see who can yell the loudest to shout down every dissenting opinion.

Have at it...


What about "You guys just don't get it and I can't explain it to you" encourages discussion?

#203 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,765
  • Reputation: 2,581
HUDDLER

Posted 21 July 2013 - 06:30 AM

Can't wait to see what reaction the George Zimmerman cover brings.....

 

... or should it be the dead body of Trayvon Martin on the cover?



#204 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,711
  • Reputation: 1,377
HUDDLER

Posted 21 July 2013 - 06:45 PM

What about "You guys just don't get it and I can't explain it to you" encourages discussion?

 

bttt

 

an answer to this question would be greatly appreciated



#205 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,711
  • Reputation: 1,377
HUDDLER

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:34 PM

bttt

 

an answer to this question would be greatly appreciated

 



#206 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,711
  • Reputation: 1,377
HUDDLER

Posted 24 July 2013 - 11:11 PM

bttt

 

an answer to this question would be greatly appreciated

 



#207 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,941
  • Reputation: 2,830
HUDDLER

Posted 25 July 2013 - 11:25 AM

But wait... here's the Time Magazine Columbine cover.... where's the outrage and where's the difference?

They used high school yearbook pics...

1101990503_400_2.jpg

For some strange reason, I'm believing this is more about the magazine and it's cover than it is the story. If Newsweek, Time or someone else prints this same cover, nobody says a word.


IMO, the Time magazine cover is worse. The victims are greyed out and pushed off to the sides in low resolution glory. The killers, meanwhile, are larger than their victims, colorful, vibrant even.
Why are the killers glorified while the victims are marginalized?

#208 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,135
  • Reputation: 2,320
HUDDLER

Posted 25 July 2013 - 11:58 AM

I think the point of a cover like that is that these people are human whether we like to admit it or not and understanding why this happened is an important part of dealing with the tragedy.  The reason the pictures are that way are to show how someone can look so completely normal but hide such dark truth.