Post by The Foozzler on Jul 17, 2013 12:30:55 GMT -5
As someone who was very close to the Newton thing, I think the media glorifies the gunman or the bomber. I blame the media for a large part of this. When you plaster the face of a killer all over the news, the killer wins. They be one infamous and they get the attention they've craved.
CVS just announced they won't carry it in their stores.
I don't know....on one hand I am actually interested in reading the article. On the other...A) It is Rolling Stone. This seems more like a Vanity Fair type article. B) I dislike the photo they have of him on the cover. It "glamorizes" way too much. C) I have been super pissed off reading all the comments on articles about this chastising RS for calling him a "monster" on the cover and "presuming guilt". People thinking that he is innocent/was set up. It's more than you would think. When he was at the Federal Courthouse the other week for the first time there were more of his supporters than there were victims. People are nuts.
It's still very raw here, and I understand all of the emotion. On the other hand...eh, it's a magazine.
Post by imimahoney on Jul 17, 2013 12:40:17 GMT -5
CE&P has a great thread about it.
I think I am ok with this. In general, yes the media glorifies murderers BUT in the case of Rolling Stone it's a big so what. They have put murderers on their cover before and often have headlines that are written to cause controversy. While I don't love the picture, I think that was the point. The bombers were very average American kids and Rolling Stone wanted to get that point across.
CVS just announced they won't carry it in their stores.
I don't know....on one hand I am actually interested in reading the article. On the other...A) It is Rolling Stone. This seems more like a Vanity Fair type article. B) I dislike the photo they have of him on the cover. It "glamorizes" way too much. C) I have been super pissed off reading all the comments on articles about this chastising RS for calling him a "monster" on the cover and "presuming guilt". People thinking that he is innocent/was set up. It's more than you would think. When he was at the Federal Courthouse the other week for the first time there were more of his supporters than there were victims. People are nuts.
It's still very raw here, and I understand all of the emotion. On the other hand...eh, it's a magazine.
I am actually very interested in the article. I just think the cover is completely unnecessary.
Post by rubber pants on Jul 17, 2013 12:51:27 GMT -5
The more I think about this the more upset I get. They are totally disrespecting the victims and sensationalizing a terrorist for the sake of gaining media attention.
I guess the executives took a huge risk here and thought they played this one well... but at what cost? CVS wont sell it. I wonder who else will jump on this bandwagon. I hope many many more.
I don't agree with it. If it were a newspaper/ news magazine or something, I view that differently. I view Rolling Stone as a celeb, entertainment and music mag with some blatantly controversial current events articles thrown in ( seemingly to create a stir and sell copies usually). It comes across as sensationalistic. It think it elevates him to some sort of rockstar, aspirational celebrity by having him on the cover like that. I mean there's no one else in the world who could be on the cover this month other than this guy? Well, what a sad, dark day for the world.
Post by creamsiclechica on Jul 17, 2013 13:08:41 GMT -5
I think it's incredibly un-American. It's not just that he's on the cover, but that particular picture makes him look eerily similar to a celebrity. I mean he looks perfectly ruppled in an Armani Exchange shirt for goodness' sake. I understand the sentiment, anyone is capable of being a terrorist, especially a domestic one. However, it's incredibly insensitive to the victims, their families, and an American society that feels threatened by extremists. It helps marginalize victims and glorify the people responsible for these atrocities against innocents. The cover is so unnecessary, and truthfully, offensive.
Post by charlielove on Jul 17, 2013 13:12:36 GMT -5
I really dislike the way this country glamorizes the terrorist/gunmen, etc. in these cases. If they feel the need to talk about this, put some of the victims on the damn cover I guess. But it really irks me to see him on the cover.