truly disgusting rolling stone

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 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...



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]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

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]

Originally Posted by becca

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]

Originally Posted by QueenStevie

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]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

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]

Originally Posted by QueenStevie

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]

Originally Posted by QueenStevie

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]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

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.