Yeah, I have seen a few on FB be unaware that RS isn't just a fluffy entertainment magazine. Which surprises me, I thought it was common knowledge that RS does legit news stories.
This isn't the first time RS has put a murderer on the cover. If this was Time Magazine, I don't this it would have been an issue.
Agreed. Sounds kind of like a case of people not really knowing the magazine at all. It's actually kind of an important cultural magazine.
I am sure that is the issue here.
But I don't think its wrong for victims or other people affected by the tragedy to have an emotional response. Folks are fine to disagree with their response. I am just trying to explain where it is coming from, and that is a) a misunderstanding of what kind of magazine Rolling Stone is and b) an emotional response that cannot be rationally explained with reason.
I think its a good cover because it will upset people. Like others have said, its nice and easy to take one look at Bin Laden or Charles Manson and go "Crazy person!" but then you can reassure yourself with "There's always crazy people. You can tell they are crazy because one is in muslim clothes and the other has a swastika on his face" or whatever. But you look at the Boston kid and go "wait - he did that? That normal looking kid?".
It makes you wonder. You cant just drop your preconceived ideas on such a normal looking kid.
This notion that people are only offended because they're not familiar with RS is snobby and ridiculous. Either the cover is offensive or it's not. It doesn't matter if RS has run similar covers in the past or if the article is good. RS may be known for pushing the envelope, but that is the point. This particular cover offended a lot of people.
Post by Wrath0fKuus on Jul 17, 2013 10:40:37 GMT -5
I like the glam portrait. The message looks like: look at this guy. He looks cool, right? Like you'd consider going if he invited you to a party, or to see his band, or maybe even if he asked you out. And the people who actually knew him say that this is an accurate idea of how they saw him. So... what the hell happened?!
With one image, it's basically what sbp and I were saying last week when we discussed his plea.
People get fired up over a lot of things. This is actually something to get fired up about, but I think more than that, it's something to read and to understand. I want to know why this guy did what he did. The Boston bombings were heinous and terrifying, but NOT talking about the crime and not talking about the man responsible isn't going to make the events less terrifying. We talked about 9/11 and the men behind it ad nauseum. This isn't any different.
Why does it bother you so much?
ETA: I think a lot of times stories like this tend to humanize subjects we, the general public, have come to regard as inhuman. When we see that person as not human then it's easier to separate ourselves from that kind of horrible violence. When we are shown that person's humanity and begin to see that that person wasn't entirely unlike ourselves it really hits just too close to home and that is scary.
I can totally understand why people were local to this event, or who had loved ones there, or who were there themselves have the visceral reaction that they do. This only happened 3 months ago. Feelings are still fresh.
This is not to say that I disagree with what others are saying. I think this is an interesting and newsworthy story, and I can't wait to read the article. But I understand why this evokes such emotions for some people.
Looking at the cover now. I am certain they are taking the exact angle I thought they would. He looks like an average american kid - because he WAS.
The subtitle of the article is:
How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster.
Totally newsworthy AND absolutely the right angle to take on this story.
/gavel
If you say so. Like I said, I think he looks super cool in the pic. Not at all like the "average american kid." A Google image search shows tons of other images where he looks like an average kid- at his HS graduation, wrestling, etc. Even some where he looks like an awkward teen. In this pic, he looks cool and mysterious. He could easily be the front man of a rock band. There is a reason why they chose this particular photo, and that is what bothers me.
At the end of the day, I don't really care all that much and I'm sure the article is great, but my first reaction was that I don't like the cover at all.
he does look cool, and mysterious in the way that young people find so intriguing. and here, it wasn't faux aloofness and mystery (like it is with college guys who have posters of che and the garden of earthly delights up in the dorm rooms to look cool). he was actually quite enigmatic, in that he orchestrated a bombing and then went to a college party. that makes it extra chilling.
like when i first saw a picture of ted bundy and realized he was handsome.
I do think the photo looks literally like a rock star (maybe not rock specifically but you know what I mean). He looks cool, he looks attractive. If you just glanced at it or if you didn't know who he was, you could easily think it had been a photo shoot of some young popular musician.
The Free Jahar fan girls are going to LOVE this one.
I'm not personally offended by it, but I can see why people are.
This notion that people are only offended because they're not familiar with RS is snobby and ridiculous. Either the cover is offensive or it's not. It doesn't matter if RS has run similar covers in the past or if the article is good. RS may be known for pushing the envelope, but that is the point. This particular cover offended a lot of people.
So would this same cover be offensive on the cover of Time or Newsweek?
It depends. Same pic? Same color scheme? Same font? Similar "fluff" headlines surrounding the pic (articles about Jay-Z, etc)? Then yes, this cover would be offensive on any magazine. There is not one single thing alone that makes this cover controversial. It is the overall look- every aspect of it was deliberate and the finished product is hip and cool and that is what is offensive. I doubt Time or Newsweek would achieve the same effect.
It feels very superior to me to say that people are only offended because they don't "get" RS.
I do think the photo looks literally like a rock star (maybe not rock specifically but you know what I mean). He looks cool, he looks attractive. If you just glanced at it or if you didn't know who he was, you could easily think it had been a photo shoot of some young popular musician.
The Free Jahar fan girls are going to LOVE this one.
I'm not personally offended by it, but I can see why people are.
this is kinda weird to me. that only ugly people can do evil things?
yes is attractive. there is no changing that. so a photo where he looks attractive is a better reflection of him than a photo of him at 13.
No, it's not that, it's the lighting and such in the photo that makes it look kind of glamorous and cool to me. I can understand the argument that the cover, at least, is glamorizing him.
these are the other covers i found with the bombers on it
This proves my point upthread. People want him to look sinister, with shady eyes and defined racial characteristics. It shocks them that he looks normal and attractive.
It depends. Same pic? Same color scheme? Same font? Similar "fluff" headlines surrounding the pic (articles about Jay-Z, etc)? Then yes, this cover would be offensive on any magazine. There is not one single thing alone that makes this cover controversial. It is the overall look- every aspect of it was deliberate and the finished product is hip and cool and that is what is offensive. I doubt Time or Newsweek would achieve the same effect.
It feels very superior to me to say that people are only offended because they don't "get" RS.
I think this is the more generous opinion - that people must not be familiar with the magazine. Because the other option is that people are offended because they don't want to be confronted with the reality that this kid wasn't a caricature of a muslim terrorist (and hell yeah that artists rendering on the cover of the other magazine is racist). This kid was completely, totally American. His closest friends were utterly stunned and could barely put sentences together trying to understand how DT was involved with (let alone equally responsible for) the bombings. To paraphrase a line from the series premier of Newsroom: A good journalist is responsible not for making sure all the people screaming get coverage, but making sure they know what they are screaming about.
are you punking us?
the only reason people are upset is 1. they just don't know what rolling stone is or 2. The don't want to deal with the Americanness of this person?
Bottom line, a cover story isn't an endorsement. This kind of outrage prevents us from having serious and important conversations, because the perception is that awareness of the thing is support of the thing. That goes for terrorism and violence and addiction and pedophilia.
It depends. Same pic? Same color scheme? Same font? Similar "fluff" headlines surrounding the pic (articles about Jay-Z, etc)? Then yes, this cover would be offensive on any magazine. There is not one single thing alone that makes this cover controversial. It is the overall look- every aspect of it was deliberate and the finished product is hip and cool and that is what is offensive. I doubt Time or Newsweek would achieve the same effect.
It feels very superior to me to say that people are only offended because they don't "get" RS.
I think this is the more generous opinion - that people must not be familiar with the magazine. Because the other option is that people are offended because they don't want to be confronted with the reality that this kid wasn't a caricature of a muslim terrorist (and hell yeah that artists rendering on the cover of the other magazine is racist). This kid was completely, totally American. His closest friends were utterly stunned and could barely put sentences together trying to understand how DT was involved with (let alone equally responsible for) the bombings. To paraphrase a line from the series premier of Newsroom: A good journalist is responsible not for making sure all the people screaming get coverage, but making sure they know what they are screaming about.
You're missing a lot of what's been said in this thread. Some people are upset because they are personally connected to, and have been deeply affected by this in some way. You don't have to understand that feeling, but I don't think it's an unreasonable reaction.
To say that the only possible reasons for being upset are ignorance about RS, or disliking that he looks American is wrong.
Listen--I saw directly on my FB feed that some people were offended that it was an article in RS, which they viewed to be a purely entertainment based magazine. There ARE people who are offended because this article is in RS.
And what kind of rockstars do you guys pay attention to? It just looks like an instagrammed selfie to me.
Do the people who think of RS as a fluff music magazine not remember this story?
I get the emotional response; I don't think that precludes RS from publishing it.
I also get the not wanting to glamorize him, and prefering to focus on victims and responders. But that doesn't help us solve the problem of radicalized homegrown terrorists. Real, good journalism serves a social need, in this case to help us understand and prevent what went wrong. You can't do that with a story on an amputee victim. I'd prefer if we didn't have cover photos of schizophrenic mass shooters either, but we can't answer "why did this happen" with a profile of Sandy Hook kids.
Bottom line, a cover story isn't an endorsement. This kind of outrage prevents us from having serious and important conversations, because the perception is that awareness of the thing is support of the thing. That goes for terrorism and violence and addiction and pedophilia.
I wish I could like this post 1000x.
I take this point, but the objection to the cover has more to do with a visceral "no, I don't want to see that" place and a place of let's not glamorize this murderer.
But cover as endorsement is an interesting point. Because it's a "sometimes"thing, right? Sometimes a cover *is* an endorsement. Sometimes not. hmm.
Actually, the first time I saw it, in the instant before I realized who it was, I thought it was Jon Snow from Game of Thrones.
Again, I'm not offended by it. But I do think it makes him look attractive and cool. I can understand why some people find that upsetting, even if I don't.
Bottom line, a cover story isn't an endorsement. This kind of outrage prevents us from having serious and important conversations, because the perception is that awareness of the thing is support of the thing. That goes for terrorism and violence and addiction and pedophilia.
But looking at the People magazine cover, wouldn't you say that the cover story is indeed endorsing Gwyneth Paltrow?
Somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but sometimes a cover story *is* an endorsement.
If that kid looks like a rock star, EVERY even remotely emo/hipster-looking kid looks like a rock star.
I think what makes him look like a rock star is the fact that he's on a magazine cover surrounded by RS graphic print. Which suggests to me that it doesn't matter what picture they used.
It's got that lighting, he's got that brooding look on his face, he looks all tousled and cool, and yes, it's on the cover of Rolling Stone.
If you didn't know who he was, would you really immediately think this was a news story as opposed to an entertainment story? I wouldn't.
If that kid looks like a rock star, EVERY even remotely emo/hipster-looking kid looks like a rock star.
I think what makes him look like a rock star is the fact that he's on a magazine cover surrounded by RS graphic print. Which suggests to me that it doesn't matter what picture they used.
WTF with you describing him as "clean cut"? You're joking, right?
Post by narockshard on Jul 17, 2013 11:39:34 GMT -5
Random question after randomly reading this entire thread (bored, lunchtime). If an average Instagram selfie pic of George Zimmerman was on the cover would you all be defending it as strongly?
ETA: I don't read RS but after the 4 covers shown of unflattering portrayals of Republican figures and the halo looking portrayal of Obama it just jumped out to me that RS seems to have a one sided agenda of sorts. Although I could very well be corrected if there are some other covers that show Republican type figures in a better way. My point is it just seems kind of strange to me to defend them as a great source for news and political coverage if they tend to sway one way only. Well, unless you're reading them to get that perspective. Of course, I can stand to be corrected as I have not done much intense research on them, but a pretty quick search didn't come up with anything.