truly disgusting rolling stone

[olive]

just to sell a magazine

just beyond words . that are printable



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[QueenStevie]

Originally Posted by olive

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]

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[SteveMacD]

Dr. Hook must be pissed.

[MikeInNV]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Dr. Hook must be pissed.