truly disgusting rolling stone

[olive]

just to sell a magazine

just beyond words . that are printable



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/rolling-stone-boston-bomber-cover_n_3607630.html t

[Macfanforever]

Maybe people should boycott the magazine.

He has nothing to do about music unless they report what kind of music on his Ipod.

They could of put FM on the cover mouths ago when they were on tour.

[chiliD]

First off, Rolling Stone magazine hasn't been a "music magazine" for at least 25 years.

I don't understand the outrage. Various magazines have put Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, Osama Bin Laden, et al on their covers before...yes, villains sell magazines. Isn't that the point of issuing a magazine, to sell it? Otherwise, why bother?

Look at the crap that gets put on the front of a daily newspaper or even the main page of a news website, what's the difference?

If you want "nice" magazine covers, subscribe to Cat Fancy or Modern Dog.

[jbrownsjr]

I'm gonna have to agree with Chili here. Didn't Time Magazine have Hitler on their cover back in the 30's? It's journalism.

[Macfanforever]

Yes I know.It's like the cable TV channels brand themselves as MTV VH1 and they run crap shows that are not related to music.

Yes this is the way they sell magazines.

[louielouie2000]

First off, Rolling Stone magazine hasn't been a "music magazine" for at least 25 years.

I don't understand the outrage. Various magazines have put Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, Osama Bin Laden, et al on their covers before...yes, villains sell magazines. Isn't that the point of issuing a magazine, to sell it? Otherwise, why bother?

Look at the crap that gets put on the front of a daily newspaper or even the main page of a news website, what's the difference?

If you want "nice" magazine covers, subscribe to Cat Fancy or Modern Dog.

I'm gonna have to agree with Chili here. Didn't Time Magazine have Hitler on their cover back in the 30's? It's journalism.

I agree with both of you. I think what Rolling Stone has done here is pretty provocative; they are getting people who may not normally read about world events/politics to read about this tragedy. Perhaps they'll incite folks to take a bit more interest in news instead of the latest scandal involving Justib Bieber or Lindsay Lohan. Maybe getting these people to read this terrorist's story will even help avert future tragedies by helping folks realize their friend/relative/neighbor/coworker exhibits similar signs that the Boston Bombers did? As a nation, we cannot simply keep ignoring our enemies & tamping out their stories. Elsewise we can't learn from these horrible tragedies, and they are bound to be repeated.

[olive]

First off, Rolling Stone magazine hasn't been a "music magazine" for at least 25 years.

I don't understand the outrage. Various magazines have put Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, Osama Bin Laden, et al on their covers before...yes, villains sell magazines. Isn't that the point of issuing a magazine, to sell it? Otherwise, why bother?

Look at the crap that gets put on the front of a daily newspaper or even the main page of a news website, what's the difference?

If you want "nice" magazine covers, subscribe to Cat Fancy or Modern Dog.

it's the glamor boy pose glorifying him as he wanted

[QueenStevie]

it's the glamor boy pose glorifying him as he wanted

Yeah, I agree that magazine is truly disgusting! Hoping Rolling Stone's plan to sell a lot of copies of that issue BACKFIRES on them!

[becca]

I've had a personal boycott against that lame-ass magazine for years, and not because of politics. They made lots of (dirty) money plastering Kurt Cobain's face all over it same as with Lennon or Morrison or Tupac. Not sure if this is really a new low for them.

[FMlex]

Coming from an extremely leftwing magazine, this cover doesn't surprise me at all.

Like another poster said, that organization will do anything to sell a magazine.

[becca]

They could have put the three victims' faces on the cover.

[olive]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1001689_10151825152588455_96937064_n.jpg

[mylittledemon]

First off, Rolling Stone magazine hasn't been a "music magazine" for at least 25 years.

I don't understand the outrage. Various magazines have put Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, Osama Bin Laden, et al on their covers before...yes, villains sell magazines. Isn't that the point of issuing a magazine, to sell it? Otherwise, why bother?


Pretty much this. I say hit RS where it hurts and don't buy their publication.

[SteveMacD]

Dr. Hook must be pissed.

[MikeInNV]

Dr. Hook must be pissed.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[bluefox4000]

People just look for reasons to be outraged these days.

Mick

[olive]

People just look for reasons to be outraged these days.

Mick

I'll pass that on to my 10 year old niece who still has hearing loss and is afraid to go out especially in crowds , it will be comforting for her to hear such kind words .

[Macfanforever]

I'm getting RS free through Live Nation or Ticketmaster when I purchased my FM tix last February .I will dump it when they send me renewal.

Maybe Livenation and TM will drop the package deal do to this outrage too.

I know as mentioned on here they been doing this for years sticking their nose into other topics besides entertainment news.


If they going to play games putting these idiot killers on the cover they mind as will put idiots like the Newtown Connecticut shooting and the Colorado movie theater shooting on the cover.


RS should stick to music or entertainment reporting and let Time,Newsweek,USA Today and other new mags do this.

I will be receiving my copy soon.


Yes I agree. They should put the victims on the cover.

[bluefox4000]

I'll pass that on to my 10 year old niece who still has hearing loss and is afraid to go out especially in crowds , it will be comforting for her to hear such kind words .

I'm sorry to hear that. but I'm just saying killers have been featured on covers before.....never heard this must rumbling. I mean if people are gonna complain be consistent. I'm sorry if you think i'm unkind....but it's just an observation.

Mick

[louielouie2000]

People just look for reasons to be outraged these days.

Mick

I'm sorry to hear that. but I'm just saying killers have been featured on covers before.....never heard this must rumbling. I mean if people are gonna complain be consistent. I'm sorry if you think i'm unkind....but it's just an observation.

Mick

I fully agree with you on this. Let's look at some historic examples:

Charles Manson not only made magazine covers, but was the subject of multiple movies and even songs in his day. Why haven't the Rolling Stones been boycotted for their giant hit song Helter Skelter?

How many magazine & book covers has Adolf Hitler made? Not to mention the countless documentaries & movies he's been portrayed in. He was even a recurring cartoon character on the Looney Tunes. These days paintings made by Hitler are highly valued, as are any personal objects of his. This is a man who ruthlessly exterminated upwards of six million people.

What about Saddam Hussein? Much like Hitler, he was a brutal dictator who slaughtered his own people. Yet he's made magazine cover after magazine cover. He's even been depicted in comedy films. Where's the outrage over Saddam?

Let's examine other aspects of popular culture. Violence and murder are the hottest things on the market. Dexter is one of the hottest TV shows right now... it's hero is a serial murderer. Warren Zevon had a very classic hit in his Werewolves Of London, an irreverent song about a serial killer. The Saw movies are one of the most profitable movie franchises of all time. Same for Halo & Grand Theft Auto in the video game realm.

It makes me wonder if the same people who are 'outraged' by the Boston Bomber making the cover of Rolling Stone extend their righteous anger to all of these other violent, murderous icons & their fame? Why have the rules suddenly changed on what is acceptable for the press to cover, and what isn't? Why are we advocating censorship? Showing a mass murderer's face on a magazine cover is treason, but trying to extend healthcare to more people is 'socialism.' I just don't get post 9/11 America, logic has been thrown out the window, and everyone is hell bent on dividing our nation into warring factions. :distress:

[bluefox4000]

I fully agree with you on this. Let's look at some historic examples:

Charles Manson not only made magazine covers, but was the subject of multiple movies and even songs in his day. Why haven't the Rolling Stones been boycotted for their giant hit song Helter Skelter?

How many magazine & book covers has Adolf Hitler made? Not to mention the countless documentaries & movies he's been portrayed in. He was even a recurring cartoon character on the Looney Tunes. These days paintings made by Hitler are highly valued, as are any personal objects of his. This is a man who ruthlessly exterminated upwards of six million people.

What about Saddam Hussein? Much like Hitler, he was a brutal dictator who slaughtered his own people. Yet he's made magazine cover after magazine cover. He's even been depicted in comedy films. Where's the outrage over Saddam?

Let's examine other aspects of popular culture. Violence and murder are the hottest things on the market. Dexter is one of the hottest TV shows right now... it's hero is a serial murderer. Warren Zevon had a very classic hit in his Werewolves Of London, an irreverent song about a serial killer. The Saw movies are one of the most profitable movie franchises of all time. Same for Halo & Grand Theft Auto in the video game realm.

It makes me wonder if the same people who are 'outraged' by the Boston Bomber making the cover of Rolling Stone extend their righteous anger to all of these other violent, murderous icons & their fame? Why have the rules suddenly changed on what is acceptable for the press to cover, and what isn't? Why are we advocating censorship? Showing a mass murderer's face on a magazine cover is treason, but trying to extend healthcare to more people is 'socialism.' I just don't get post 9/11 America, logic has been thrown out the window, and everyone is hell bent on dividing our nation into warring factions. :distress:


i agree. Post 9/11 U.S. sucks. I can't see it getting any better either. Just so everybody knows....I'm NOT anti-American. I'm Anti BS and it's devouring us these days.

Mick

[louielouie2000]

Let me also add that I watch PBS News every night, and I invariably watch segments on the Boston Bombing victims. It's heartbreaking- they're all so young, active, positive, highly educated, very successful- the absolute definition of everything that is good about our citizens. It's abhorrant that terrorists killed & handicapped so many innocent people. It truly breaks my heart to see all of these victims grappling with their injuries; learning to live without legs, or family members, or the dealing with crippling psychological disorders due to the blasts.

Of course it's detestable to think of the bombers gaining notoriety because of their heinous acts. But as history has proven, it's inevitable. So why not try to direct some of that hurt into a positive, helpful direction; learning about these mass killers- their backgrounds, motives, warning signs- so if nothing else, so that we can be more vigilant as citizens. We can't stick out heads in the sand & expect terrorism to go away as a result. Ignorance has never solved any long term problem, neither has censorship.

[becca]

Okay, everything is about manufacturing outrage today but some go out of their way to provoke it for the attention (which they've gotten here) I think. It's mostly that the magazine chose the glamorizing type of photo for the cover. Hardly the essence of 'serious journalism'. And so soon after the trauma. It's like they can't imagine the magazine being on stands in Boston or something.

RS has had news and political content forever, usually of the Mother Jones type, but they also pander to sell and get attention in ways that has made them despised in many quarters for some time now. All the Kurt Cobain cult type stuff really made me ill, plus the Gangsta rap wars garbage and anything and everything Eminem or Marilyn Manson did, and feeding off the corpses of John Lennon and Jim Morrison before that, bleh. They've had some really lame long time reviewers too who measure everything by Springsteen/Neil Young/Wilco standards and the less like them the worse they find it. The magazine died in the early '80s to me. I get some free sometimes and it reminds me of how it's really just a cog for marketing and hype with only token biting of the hand.

I wouldn't want to do much of what they do just to make some of that green manalishi money. I spend my money with Uncut, Shindig, Ugly Things, Flashback, Mojo (sometimes) and Record Collector (sometimes).

Not putting your support/money behind something you find offensive is not censorship.

[shackin'up]

It's tasteless and dumb. No RS for me the next year or so. Idiots.

[KarmaContestant]

I fully agree with you on this. Let's look at some historic examples:

Charles Manson not only made magazine covers, but was the subject of multiple movies and even songs in his day. Why haven't the Rolling Stones been boycotted for their giant hit song Helter Skelter?

How many magazine & book covers has Adolf Hitler made? Not to mention the countless documentaries & movies he's been portrayed in. He was even a recurring cartoon character on the Looney Tunes. These days paintings made by Hitler are highly valued, as are any personal objects of his. This is a man who ruthlessly exterminated upwards of six million people.

What about Saddam Hussein? Much like Hitler, he was a brutal dictator who slaughtered his own people. Yet he's made magazine cover after magazine cover. He's even been depicted in comedy films. Where's the outrage over Saddam?

Let's examine other aspects of popular culture. Violence and murder are the hottest things on the market. Dexter is one of the hottest TV shows right now... it's hero is a serial murderer. Warren Zevon had a very classic hit in his Werewolves Of London, an irreverent song about a serial killer. The Saw movies are one of the most profitable movie franchises of all time. Same for Halo & Grand Theft Auto in the video game realm.

It makes me wonder if the same people who are 'outraged' by the Boston Bomber making the cover of Rolling Stone extend their righteous anger to all of these other violent, murderous icons & their fame? Why have the rules suddenly changed on what is acceptable for the press to cover, and what isn't? Why are we advocating censorship? Showing a mass murderer's face on a magazine cover is treason, but trying to extend healthcare to more people is 'socialism.' I just don't get post 9/11 America, logic has been thrown out the window, and everyone is hell bent on dividing our nation into warring factions. :distress:

Great post, Louie.

There's a point where good ole' American resilience should come into play. We are stronger than a magazine cover. Our freedom of expression, speech, assembly and press are far stronger than a magazine cover.

Considering the TRUE horrors that are going on all over the world this very moment, I'm surprised and very disappointed that people all over the U.S. have put so much energy into bashing Rolling Stone over a magazine cover - I mean good grief - there are Facebook groups forming overnight that are dedicated to wiping out Rolling Stone. It's ridiculous. They don't even comment on the story, which they'll never read - it's JUST THE COVER. OMG MY EYES!!!

:rolleyes:

Buck up and find a cause that's meaningful to devote your time and money to, instead of fanatically trying to tear down yet another American company that is just trying to provide good journalism and keep people employed in an era where print media is increasingly harder to justify.

[becca]

When people were offended by a southern flag flying over a state capitol I chose the people over the 'tradition'.

When a chicken franchise was forcing workers to submit to political and religious propaganda in their workplace I chose the workers over the company.

Choose the people over this company. It takes much and then disclaims all responsibility in the name of money of which there will never be enough, even those with millions are driven to get further millions even at the cost of becoming inhuman and disconnected.

I've seen the other side, been brought up with it, and was through with seeing things that supposed bootstraps way long ago. I'd rather starve than glamorize that bomber in the way they would want, or to add insult to the injured. I'm not tough enough to live or love that way.

"Talk to them, so you can see, what's going on."

[Jondalar]

don't you know, Rolling Stone is cool and above it all

[Macfanforever]

It does not matter what people do these days.There is always somebody will beach or praise about it.

Some people are really touchy and come unglued over petty crap.And other just dont give a crap.

[becca]

Yeah, murder and terrorism is like just so ten minutes ago I'm sure, yawn... hey, who's the cute babe on that mag!

[SteveMacD]

Charles Manson not only made magazine covers, but was the subject of multiple movies and even songs in his day. Why haven't the Rolling Stones been boycotted for their giant hit song Helter Skelter?
I'm sure the Beatles might have an opinion about that....:laugh:

[SteveMacD]

Color me less than outraged.

I could see the point being to show young people that the image of terrorism isn't always what has been portrayed in pop culture since 9-11 and to explore how this "good kid" became a monster. I've heard it wasn't done all that well, though.

As for the image having "sex appeal", it's not like that wasn't the image that was used by the media since they captured him. Nothing new there.

Finally, Rolling Stone, since its inception, has always been a mix of politics and pop culture, coming about in a time when both were highly intertwined.

Again, I think there are WAY bigger fish to fry.

[becca]

I can't think of any pop culture type magazines I've ever bought with Charles Manson, Bin Laden, Hitler or anything of the kind in a positive light on the cover. I can think of satirical depictions though. If you want that buy a dozen, it's your right. I agree with the original poster that this instance is disgusting and callous toward those effected, and more about making a buck then serious journalist intent. I doubt Mother Jones would ever run such a cover.

[SteveMacD]

I can't think of any pop culture type magazines I've ever bought with Charles Manson, Bin Laden, Hitler or anything of the kind in a positive light on the cover.
I would agree if not for the fact that IT'S THE SAME PICTURE EVERY NEWS ORGANIZATION HAS USED WHEN REPORTING THE STORY.

Have news organizations used THAT pic for ratings all this time?

[becca]

Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report magazines haven't had any cover like that one. People magazine had a much smaller and different if relatively similar photo of him on a cover, that's all I can find. Would like to see any large circulation U.S. magazine that comes close to a cover like this one actually, never mind one that almost always has rock star/celebrities on the cover (and when they haven't it's been someone like Obama or another positive figure).

It's what used to be called vulgar and is now at least bloody stupid. The fact that it has upset people from Boston should take precedence. Telling them to quit being outraged on this seems about as wrong to me. telling all those black people how don't they know racism has been declared extinct? Good lord, they're arming themselves with sidewalks! Really, are they are being so irresponsible in not just shutting up?

Next time Rush Limpd*ck and his perpetually outraged privileged clan are offended by access to birth control coverage, gay people daring to exist without permission never mind legally marrying, or a tax collection agency looking at groups named after a tax revolution you will all step forward to tell them to get over it as they've been outraged seemingly every day since Bill Clinton was elected.

The real face of the bombings...

http://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-bombing-four1.jpg

In the past I've been editor of two small circulation magazines and have received letters from people who seemed genuinely offended by something in an issue. I can't imagine thinking of arguing with them or saying I know they can't really have been. That would be bad business and impolite. Working in retail I'm also of the old school of the customer being my ultimate employer. Is listening such an alien concept these days and offering a simple apology even? Someone says they are offended by something they are offended and that's it, now to fight with them like Rolling Stone seems bent on makes the whole thing even worse for both sides.

[sparky]

I have yet to read this article, but though Rolling Stone has a historic political bent to the left, I have found throughout my years in reading it (33 and counting), that sometimes they truly hit the journalism ball out of the park.

They tell and research stories that make people uncomfortable, and peel back some unexpected layers from timely stories that few other magazines ever have.

Considering the tag on the cover - How a Popular, Promising Student was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Islam and Became a Monster - this is a story I want to read. I am curious about how this kid became who he is. Just as I was curious how the Columbine killers turned into who they were. Do I find both acts reprehensible? Duh. Nonetheless, the bigger problem in our culture is how these killers were created. What drove them to this? I want to know. The deed is done - but what the hell led to it? A journalist friend of mine wrote a book on Columbine. He devoted many years of his life to it. He was not out to glorify those kids. He was out to deconstruct and understand what led to the events. These are things we need to understand. As people. As a country.

I disagree with those who say this cover glorifies the killer. Regardless of what he did, at one point he was a son, a brother, a friend to someone, an adorable little baby people cooed over and called a miracle. As all babies are. But WTF happened? It is a question we need to ask. We need to know how people turn into monsters. Just as stories about serial killers have been explored in popular media, people like this need to be discussed. Until about 20 years ago, I did not know that serial killers often kill animals as kids, keep kill trophies, and exhibit other sociopathic and anti social behaviors as early as grade school. This is important information. Of course I condemn these actions, but it is crucial that we know how these people develop. What goes wrong, what creates them, how this disaster happens.

He is on a magazine cover. So what? So are Kanye West, Kardashians, Paris Hilton, and other steaming, useless, fame whoring, money grubbing hunks of human garbage. People whose stories can tell us nothing valuable. The story of what happened to this kid, what birthed this horrible tragedy, is something that can help us a people, as a country, and as human beings.

Does it offend some people? Of course. I could not possibly care less about some person being offended. People are offended every day. I am offended by cologne. By PDA. By screaming infants on planes. By bad drivers. By the Westboro Baptist Church. By people who pay by check in the grocery store. By Autotune. By bad plastic surgery. By the fact that Stevie ever recorded When I See You Again. They all offend my sensibilities of decent human behavior and dignified civil deportment. But when exactly did being offended become a personal, psychological, and emotional type of damage so severe that it was worthy of a lawsuit, a TV special, or an official national media declared demarcation of martyrdom? You are offended? Really? Join the rest of the human race. And pay your bills and get the hell over your precious feelings. It is called adulthood.

This reminds me of Julie Chen creating a very public brouhaha over the comments made by an idiotic Big Brother contestant. She took it all personally. She was STUNG by them. Seriously? So what was the exact extent of this damage? I wonder. Did she need to visit her therapist? Were psychotropic or anti-depressant prescriptions dispensed? Did she perhaps require institutionalization in a psychiatric facility for a long weekend? Just how badly did that really damage her and disrupt her ability to perform the daily tasks required of her to function and get through her day? The truth is, not one bit. It ruined her minute. It was a speed bump. It made her mad. So f&&&ing what? I have reasons to get mad and toss a fit a dozen times a day. And so do you.

Ditto for the dust up over this cover.

But the difference is this cover, and the story that may lurk in the pages of that magazine, might help us make sense of something that truly did disrupt the lives of many people. And it may have the potential to perhaps stop the creation of another monster. We need to understand the world we are living in. Not throw bombs at the people trying to make us look at why our world has become the literal minefield it now is. People are choosing the wrong targets. The easy knee jerk targets. Most everyone is frantically, desperately trying to treat the symptoms so they can then walk calmly, self righteously away, heads in the clouds, ignoring the disease that is slowly rotting their guts and the ground beneath their feet.

[becca]

All I know is people who were involved directly are genuinely upset and telling them they're all wrong or not to be disgusted does not seem an option. I listen to them and show respect. Even if many are doing the same 'you're all wrong and it's your own fault if you have a problem' to people upset about a recent high profile trial's result. I can't understand that either. Any Charles Manson features that are needlessly sensationalist are garbage to me as well although he had a music connection.

That cover really doesn't speak of serious investigative journalism, albeit probably not the actual author's fault how his work is packaged for sale.

[RockawayBlind]

Great post, Louie.

There's a point where good ole' American resilience should come into play. We are stronger than a magazine cover. Our freedom of expression, speech, assembly and press are far stronger than a magazine cover.



How refreshing, and thank you. I'm in the corner of the world that was affected by the Boston Marathon bombings, and I understand the reaction. But, unfortunately, like everything else in America, people react out of willful ignorance a lot times and become pawns in what is nothing more than a one-upsmanship game of provoking and expressing outrage. Who can be more outraged today? All the while, the real issues go ignored.

Rolling Stone's cover is a perfect reflection of the cover story.

The cover story is one of the best pieces of journalism I have seen in ages.

Anyone who throws "left-wing" and "liberal" labels at this story simply doesn't get it.

There is no glorification of a murderer. Only an attempt to understand why someone who, having been welcomed into this country and enjoying a pretty good life by all accounts, suddenly becomes a monster.

Would we rather not understand? Doesn't knowledge and understanding help us evolve? Or do we prefer to wallow in willful ignorance?

Rolling Stone, thank goodness, can still print whatever it wants because freedom of the press still exists in this country. Unfortunately that freedom is corrupted and prostituted every single day by the cynical, money-hungry conglomerates that own the media (Murrow turning over in his grave).

Really, I understand the hurt and the pain. I understand the reaction. And, yes, I understand Rolling Stone's calculated play in putting that particular photo on its cover. But, rather than lament it, we should celebrate it. Hurray for freedom of the press. Enjoy it while we still have it.

[QueenStevie]

That cover really doesn't speak of serious investigative journalism...

It would've spoken of serious investigative journalism if that Boston marathon bomber had been made to look like the ugly terrorist he is...BUT NOOOO...Rolling Stone just HAD to make him as good-looking as possible!

[SteveMacD]

It would've spoken of serious investigative journalism if that Boston marathon bomber had been made to look like the ugly terrorist he is...BUT NOOOO...Rolling Stone just HAD to make him as good-looking as possible!
Genetics made him good looking. Rolling Stone was examining why he became a monster.

[QueenStevie]

Genetics made him good looking. Rolling Stone was examining why he became a monster.

Most know what I meant. Rolling Stone COULD have put that ugly terrorist in an unflattering light, COULD have made him have an unflattering look...BUT THEY DIDN'T!

[Dex]

Most know what I meant. Rolling Stone COULD have put that ugly terrorist in an unflattering light, COULD have made him have an unflattering look...BUT THEY DIDN'T!

What would be the point of that? Perpetuating the idea that the world is evil ugly monsters vs. attractive virtuous people isn't going to do anyone any favours in terms of social progress. There's nothing wrong with humanizing a terrorist for analytic purposes. Though it can be difficult to accept, we need to face the fact that terrorists already are humans. And every human becomes what they are for certain reasons. Those reasons are worth examining, particularly if we want to help prevent these kinds of things from happening in the future. Out-and-out demonization simply isn't going to achieve that. To respond to Becca's Manson/Hitler/Bin Laden comparisons, I'd be very interested in reading articles exploring the human aspects and personal histories of those men too. I do agree that RS is an odd choice in which to do it, but I can't be all that upset by it either. Especially since, as said, RS having a political bent isn't unprecedented.

I do find it interesting that the inclination to portray the human elements of a terrorist in mainstream media has only really come along for a handsome (by western convention) white terrorist. Terrorists who look "ethnic" are never framed as "falling victim" to evil radical islam etc. They simply are the face of it, and the media has a much easier time outgrouping them without question. But internalized prejudices and their manifestations are kind of a liberal wanky pet-interest of mine, and beside the point of this topic.

ETA: I think the words "Rolling Stone" over his head are what prompt people to interpret this photo as "glamourous". It's just a straight-up mug at the end of the day.

[RockawayBlind]

Most know what I meant. Rolling Stone COULD have put that ugly terrorist in an unflattering light, COULD have made him have an unflattering look...BUT THEY DIDN'T!

So you'd prefer a cartoon that fits your preconceived notion of what a terrorist looks like, as opposed to how the kid actually looked.

[Dex]

So you'd prefer a cartoon that fits your preconceived notion of what a terrorist looks like, as opposed to how the kid actually looked.

In fairness, I think most people probably would. "An evil villain who is nothing like me did this" is much easier for most to digest than "A person did this". That's really a mindset we need to try and get past, but it isn't going to be easy.

[QueenStevie]

I would've preferred that Rolling Stone hadn't decided to put that ugly terrorist on the magazine cover. But since they went ahead and put him on the cover...I think it would've been serious investigative journalism if he had been shown NOT cartoon-like, BUT realistically, like how he bloodily looks in those photos that that police sniper/police photographer took of him!

[Macfanforever]

I just received my copy in the mail today.