Boston bomber on cover of Rolling Stone

[thebamker]

Jul 17, 2013 19:00:33 GMT -5 melindafelinda said:

Jul 17, 2013 18:41:05 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

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 agree with this. He looks anything but typical in that photo.

[Deleted]

I guess I feel like it was in poor taste because the cover of RS is usually reserved for the coolest of the cool in the world and what he did is murder and terrorize a large number of people, including kids. I understand they've included criminals, etc before, but I feel this was particularly touchy because he already has a disgusting flock of tweenie and teenie girls that worship him and being on the cover of RS further glorifies a monster to these girls who won't bother to read the article or even understand it.

[lilafowler]

You all know I live in Boston-I was at a CVS in a town south of Boston yesterday and one of the workers went to a couple of others doing stock and told them how they weren't going to be carrying "the" Rolling Stone magazine. The two workers asked the girl what she was talking about-she explained to them about the cover and both of them were outraged. One of them said "What is Rolling Stone thinking? Way to outrage people to get them to read your magazine."

A LOT of people around here are absolutely incensed.

Haven't read the article yet but I have it bookmarked. I'll make my decision on the cover AFTER I read it.

[olives]

I'm not offended easily, but I find this in completely poor taste.

Yes, they could have done an article on him, but they did not have to put him on the cover.

[Deleted]

Yeah, it's a BFD here.

I don't think I can blame people here for being upset about it BUT it seems like yet another way people are focusing on the superficial in this instance and not the actual, relevant, interesting information. All of LHC's points make sense to me and I get really frustrated when people keep trying to find what are frankly xenophobic reasons for a very home-bred problem.

I will be reading the article.

[ax2]

I totally get the point LHC is making, and I think the picture accomplished what RS was going for. We're all taking about it.

Before I really thought about it, I did think it was in poor taste, but in reality, I think it's just my initial emotional reaction to seeing his smug little face.

[jigsy]

I don't get the hub-bub. If someone reads the article, it makes sense why that photo was chosen.
Further, it's not healthy for society to only perceive evil and bad people in mug shots and shit. Normal looking people do horrible things. Someone who is going to do you harm is rarely going to be a walking mugshot or be in handcuffs. People need to realize that there are many faces of terrorism/evil

[pantsparty]

Jul 18, 2013 9:14:12 GMT -5 olives said:

I'm not offended easily, but I find this in completely poor taste.

Yes, they could have done an article on him, but they did not have to put him on the cover.

Well, that's pretty big of you.

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2013 9:20:57 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Jul 18, 2013 8:57:50 GMT -5 @libellula said:

I guess I feel like it was in poor taste because the cover of RS is usually* reserved for the coolest of the cool in the world and what he did is murder and terrorize a large number of people, including kids. I understand they've included criminals, etc before, but I feel this was particularly touchy because he already has a disgusting flock of tweenie and teenie girls that worship him and being on the cover of RS further glorifies a monster to these girls who won't bother to read the article or even understand it.

Coolest of the cool?

That's why I said *usually.

[Deleted]

I don't know, I think of the ppl outraged would be equally upset if this WASN'T a cover story and they opted for a musician instead.

Like "terrorism should always be more important than Miley Cyrus!!!"

[lilybug]

I dunno, I think it looks like a normal instagram selfie.

Some of my fb friends are up in arms saying it's "glorifying" him because it's some super-cool picture instead of his mugshot. IIRC, this was his profile pic. This was the real him. It's not like RS brought him in for a rockstar photo shoot.

I think maybe some people would rather be in denial that he was a semi-attractive, normal looking guy. Blows our whole terrorist schema out of the water.

[thebamker]

Jul 18, 2013 9:31:03 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Jul 18, 2013 9:24:28 GMT -5 @libellula said:

That's why I said *usually.

So it's okay to make an exception for Charles Manson, but not for Tsarnaev?  Is one okay and one not?  Are you just as outraged by the cover of Manson?  Honestly, like it or not, RS has a history of controversial and hard-hitting cover stories involving current events -- not just rock stars and celebrities. 

(P.S.  Charles Manson had a lot of teeny-bopper followers too.)

why is does being upset about the bomber somehow mean you were OK with Manson?  RS has been around a LONG time... you're talking about two covers here.  Can't they BOTH be distasteful?

[thebamker]

Jul 18, 2013 9:14:12 GMT -5 olives said:

I'm not offended easily, but I find this in completely poor taste.

Yes, they could have done an article on him, but they did not have to put him on the cover.

exactly.

Saying "if you read the article, you'd get it" has no bearing with me.  Not everyone is going to read it. It's not mandatory reading. On the other hand, most ppl ARE going to go to the store and be forced to look at his face while they wait to buy their stuff.  not cool.

[gozf]

The article is incredibly well written and thoughtful, and I would much rather have a cover story like this than another puff piece on Adam fucking Levine or some other such nonsense. There's no glorification, there's no justification. It's a well done, appropriate piece.

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2013 9:31:03 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Jul 18, 2013 9:24:28 GMT -5 @libellula said:

That's why I said *usually.

So it's okay to make an exception for Charles Manson, but not for Tsarnaev?  Is one okay and one not?  Are you just as outraged by the cover of Manson?  Honestly, like it or not, RS has a history of controversial and hard-hitting cover stories involving current events -- not just rock stars and celebrities. 

(P.S.  Charles Manson had a lot of teeny-bopper followers too.)

I wasn't even alive for the Manson cover so I don't know how I would have felt, and I'm not outraged by anything and don't know why you're reaching here? I clearly stated I feel "it was in poor taste", which many others have also stated in this thread. I've only ever read Rolling Stone once for an article written by Marilyn Manson, I'm just uncomfortable with it. Manson and this little shithead aren't even in the same category for me.

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2013 9:42:30 GMT -5 thebamker said:

Jul 18, 2013 9:14:12 GMT -5 olives said:

I'm not offended easily, but I find this in completely poor taste.

Yes, they could have done an article on him, but they did not have to put him on the cover.

exactly.

Saying "if you read the article, you'd get it" has no bearing with me.  Not everyone is going to read it. It's not mandatory reading. On the other hand, most ppl ARE going to go to the store and be forced to look at his face while they wait to buy their stuff.  not cool.

Well, obviously the media didn't think of that either while broadcasting news about it for weeks after his arrest.

I do admit, though, I think that's where a lot of the MA outrage is coming from.  I respect it but disagree.  I think it's worth a little discomfort to truly delve into this issue.

[thebamker]

Jul 18, 2013 9:43:23 GMT -5 AutumnRose25 said:

Jul 18, 2013 9:42:30 GMT -5 thebamker said:

exactly.

Saying "if you read the article, you'd get it" has no bearing with me.  Not everyone is going to read it. It's not mandatory reading. On the other hand, most ppl ARE going to go to the store and be forced to look at his face while they wait to buy their stuff.  not cool.

oh no, the suffering. 

are you shitting me right now? 

[gozf]

Jul 18, 2013 9:48:40 GMT -5 ninjabridemom said:

Jul 18, 2013 9:42:30 GMT -5 thebamker said:

exactly.

Saying "if you read the article, you'd get it" has no bearing with me.  Not everyone is going to read it. It's not mandatory reading. On the other hand, most ppl ARE going to go to the store and be forced to look at his face while they wait to buy their stuff.  not cool.

Well, obviously the media didn't think of that either while broadcasting news about it for weeks after his arrest.

I do admit, though, I think that's where a lot of the MA outrage is coming from.  I respect it but disagree.  I think it's worth a little discomfort to truly delve into this issue.

Oh, hey, this is what I was thinking, but coherent and without expletives!  Thank you for being articulate,  because I am having trouble today.

[eddy]

I am annoyed our big grocery chain in Iowa has banned it so I need to figure out where to buy it. I am also annoyed with H for letting our subscription run out. I bet the campus bookstore will be carrying it.

I love RS articles so I have no doubt I will find this piece interesting.

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2013 9:53:05 GMT -5 eddy said:

I am annoyed our big grocery chain in Iowa has banned it so I need to figure out where to buy it. I am also annoyed with H for letting our subscription run out. I bet the campus bookstore will be carrying it.

I love RS articles so I have no doubt I will find this piece interesting.

 www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717

[papie]

Jul 17, 2013 21:45:59 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I think you should read the article, @jezebel! The whole thing is an exploration of the kid's life, interviews with people he knew. The whole point is the cover, as in, This kid is one of your friends. They interview his peer group from high school, kids he hung out with. It's jarring how easily he could have been someone I knew in high school, quiet, nice, sort of on the fringe but a sweet guy; someone you'd have a little sneaker for. It's alarming, and it's supposed to be.

Ouf.  I just started it, and bookmarked to get back to it later.  It is hard to read, hard to see how normal he was, hard to see how in normal everyday regular people hides a monster.  But I get what RS is doing here. 

[rex]

I completely get why RS did it, but I'm sure they also expected people to be pissed off about it, especially people in Boston and the victims.

I do plan on reading the article today.

[gretchenindisguise]

I was a bit taken aback, then listened to an NPR story about it.

I think it's the ultimate "Don't Judge a Book By It's Cover".

[princessx]

They chose that picture for one reason only:  To sell magazines.

It worked - RS has got more free publicity than they could ever buy.

Personally, I hope this is one of their worst selling issues, but I doubt it.

Px

[bostonrunnah]

I'm upset by it, but for obvious reasons. I think for people who were there, who saw carnage, who were personally affected by the results of what he did, don't give two shits about whether or not it calls him a "monster" on the cover or delve into what happened in the article. I also don't care about whether or not he WAS a good a well liked kid, or whether or not he doesn't fit the "terrorist" particular look. The bombing was only 3 months ago. There's still the fact that he murdered an 8 year old.

If it helps, I think that if I was alive during the Manson era, I probably would have been upset by that, too if I had been personally affected.

It's not that I don't think it's an important subject - I certainly do - but he does look like a rockstar in his selfie and it's upsetting and I reserve the right to want to throw up every time I see his smug ass face.

[gozf]

What pic would be appropriate, then? One where he looks deranged? One where he's wounded? One that's completely out of context? I tend to think using a photo that showed what he actually looked like is the way to go. Terrorism is insidious, and this case is proof. Yes, it's unsettling. But I find RS's treatment of this FAR less disturbing that all of the inaccurate "breaking" reports that were splashed all over the media. They took their time and published a real portrait of this person and how he came to be. They don't sugarcoat or make excuses. They tell the story -- well, at that -- and they show us what he looked like. It's not sensationalism, and while I'm sure they expected backlash, they felt it was worth it.

[pantsparty]

Jul 18, 2013 10:07:47 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

This is neither here nor there, but I laugh my ass off every time princess x signs her posts.

I think it's actually my dad; he signs all his text messages. Hi, Dad!

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2013 9:43:23 GMT -5 AutumnRose25 said:

Jul 18, 2013 9:42:30 GMT -5 thebamker said:

exactly.

Saying "if you read the article, you'd get it" has no bearing with me.  Not everyone is going to read it. It's not mandatory reading. On the other hand, most ppl ARE going to go to the store and be forced to look at his face while they wait to buy their stuff.  not cool.

oh no, the suffering. 

Are you fucking serious with this shit, autumn?  

[Deleted]

I just want him to be non-existent, basically. Here in Denver, the family of one of the victims of the Aurora theater shooting issued up a challenge to the local media: Don't talk about the shooter at all. Don't say his name, don't show his face. So, instead, for the anniversary, they are talking about the victims. Because those are the people we should care about, not the murderer.

[princessx]

Jul 18, 2013 10:34:44 GMT -5 pantsparty said:

Jul 18, 2013 10:07:47 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

This is neither here nor there, but I laugh my ass off every time princess x signs her posts.

I think it's actually my dad; he signs all his text messages. Hi, Dad!

It comes from a long time ago waaaay back on the Nest or even the Knot.  Somebody (honestly, I can't even remember who or why anymore) was irked by signed posts.  So I started signing mine and now I just continue to do it for spite.  Bossyhoneychrrch can't make me stop.

Px