I am not easily offended, but I find it disgusting that they put his picture on the cover. They made him look like some kind of rock star. Why don't they put a picture of one of the victims? I'm really bothered by it.
Post by vampsterdam on Jul 17, 2013 18:28:22 GMT -5
Yeah, not going to lie, I saw it first thing when I woke up/turned on the tv and I had to think "Which artist is that?". Then it hit me and I was offended, not going to lie. Ugh.
I'm not offended by this. They put Manson on the cover way back when. And the NYT also used this photo on their front page. And Time put him on the cover.
I think I need to get off the internet this week. I'm obviously sleep deprived and thought, "Marilyn Manson? Duh. Musician." *-)
Yeah, I guess just because others have done it, doesn't mean they should join in on the bandwagon.
Also? It doesn't feel offensive coming from Time Magazine or NYT.
Post by melindafelinda on Jul 17, 2013 18:35:08 GMT -5
I don't care that they put him on the cover. I object to them using a picture that clearly makes him look like the "cool" dude. I think that was a poor choice and sends a bad message.
I'm not offended but I get why some are. It's not a photo they took (it's a selfie), the article is about how a Normal American Kid becomes That Monster Terrorist and a selfie (that's been published many times over the past several months in several prominent journals and dailies) really captures how he sees himself (particularly as it was taken closer to the time of the bombings than some of the other "approved" pictures) vs. a shot of him being captured or an older photo or a mugshot or whatever constitutes "safe" rather than "relevant." The outrage is because a lot of people view RS as a music magazine or a pop-culture magazine rather than realizing that they have really relevant articles and a rather good (okay, excellent) political journalism desk. The "selfie" ties in with the article in a much more meaningful way than any other that's out there.
Yeah, it's more the choice of picture. He really does look like he's trying to be fucking Bob Dylan or something. If that were me, I'd be like "wow, cover of Rolling Stone and I'm looking pretty cool!" Ugh. He's a murderer. If anything, use his mug shot.
Because it's a controversial magazine and everyone would talk about it. I'm not defending it, but on the flip side it's starting many broader conversations of how the potential for fame plays into these types of acts, how regular kids can be susceptible to radicalism, how a terrorist can look like the kid next door, etc.
I don't care that they put him on the cover. I object to them using a picture that clearly makes him look like the "cool" dude. I think that was a poor choice and sends a bad message.
I think it sends exactly the message they were going for, which is that this kid was a typical Americanized teenager, and it's important to figure out what happened to turn him into a terrorist. And it's also important to illustrate that not all terrorists look like terrorists, and that looks can be deceiving ad stereotypes are wrong.
I would agree except he doesn't look typical to me in this pic. He looks like a cool rockstar. Him smiling and playing soccer or whatever would have been more average to me and not as inappropriate.
I think the picture was appropriate for the article. He looks like someone you'd want to be friends with - that's the point. They're showing how a guy goes from well-liked and popular to terrorist. I think that's interesting and newsworthy.
We are used to magazine cover = endorsement, but I don't think that's always the case. If it were Time or Newsweek, I don't think there would be such an outrage.
Post by RoxMonster on Jul 17, 2013 19:54:31 GMT -5
I totally agree with LHC. It's a relevant topic right now, and RS has done some very interesting in-depth profiles before. They're much more than a music magazine and have covered quite a bit of political and current events issues in the past.
I also am fine with the pic they used for the reasons LHC stated. I think many Americans have a very stereotypical view or picture of what a terrorist looks like. This is shattering that previously held view and showing that it can be the kid next door or even someone who looks like a rockstar. There is no "type."
Plus in the subheading on the cover, they called him a "monster," so it's not like they are condoning his behavior or what he did at all. I am OK with it.
I don't care that they put him on the cover. I object to them using a picture that clearly makes him look like the "cool" dude. I think that was a poor choice and sends a bad message.
I think it sends exactly the message they were going for, which is that this kid was a typical Americanized teenager, and it's important to figure out what happened to turn him into a terrorist. And it's also important to illustrate that not all terrorists look like terrorists, and that looks can be deceiving ad stereotypes are wrong.
Well, I did think it was in poor taste and then I read LHCs logical argument and now i don't know what I think. Damnit.
I'm not offended but I get why some are. It's not a photo they took (it's a selfie), the article is about how a Normal American Kid becomes That Monster Terrorist and a selfie (that's been published many times over the past several months in several prominent journals and dailies) really captures how he sees himself (particularly as it was taken closer to the time of the bombings than some of the other "approved" pictures) vs. a shot of him being captured or an older photo or a mugshot or whatever constitutes "safe" rather than "relevant." The outrage is because a lot of people view RS as a music magazine or a pop-culture magazine rather than realizing that they have really relevant articles and a rather good (okay, excellent) political journalism desk. The "selfie" ties in with the article in a much more meaningful way than any other that's out there.
Yeah. One of the editors was on NPR today talking about it. They WANTED to capture the zomg he looks just like a normal college kid that was popular and well liked but turned into a monster and did horrible things. The picture is exactly what would illustrate the story. He WAS normal. He was attractive. People liked him.
Post by margotmacomber on Jul 17, 2013 20:36:35 GMT -5
Also, sure it made him look like a rock star. He is vain. He posted selfies. What about every college girl posing for her pictures trying to look like a sexed up model? If the bomber was a female they could have found an equally "glamorized" photo. KIDS THESE DAYS
i've already talked this to death on PCE, but i think that finding the cover startling/jarring/emotionally fraught is exactly in keeping with the nature of the article and of the shock. i get why people personally affected by this don't want to look at his face ever. but that was his face, when he was acting all instagram selfie cool, like every other teenager/college student in america. that SHOULD be jarring/startling/emotionally fraught.
I can see why some are okay with it and why some aren't. What puzzles me is this;
There are a few people on my facebook who are sharing the cover of the magazine and congratulating CVS for not selling it. And they, themselves, are not okay with his picture being shown like that.
Yet they are sharing the cover all over their facebooks. I commented and asked them what the difference is? Congratulating CVS for keeping it out of the public eye, yet plastering it on facebook - getting the cover out there has still been accomplished.
Post by margotmacomber on Jul 17, 2013 23:02:20 GMT -5
So I know this thread is old by now but my FB feed has a selfie of my little cousin's boyfriend that looks almost exactly like the RS cover. Hair and all. No scarf, but a black t shirt. Same hair and shit. On FB. I will post that shit if provoked. His settings are public. /zips it up