Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[PhilsFan]

I can't for the life of me understand why it's controversial.

[The_Pac_Mule]

I think it was less the fact that he's on the cover of a magazine, but more that the picture they used makes him look like he was in One Direction. And that it's Rolling Stone, which cover usually features worthless celebrities and mediocre musicians. I honestly don't think its a big deal but I can see why some would be upset over it.

That being said I think they should have used this picture:

[deep]

I knew it was a cover shot first time I saw it.

Originally Posted by deep

every time I see this picture



this comes to mind

[nbcrusader]

Journalism is now infotainment.

And the dying print media needs more shock value to maintain circulation levels.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Journalism is now infotainment.

And the dying print media needs more shock value to maintain circulation levels.

I haven't paid for a Rolling Stone magazine since I wanted to read the Zooropa review - so about 20 years ago.

Now I just read a collection of reviews online.

Rolling Stone has the right to be provocative - but consumers also have the right to boycott.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Journalism is now infotainment.

And the dying print media needs more shock value to maintain circulation levels.

Truth.

[Pearl]

I hear the article is actually good, and doesn't glorify him in anyway.

However, the cover photo is tasteless to me. They could've used a different pic for that. And I agree it was done out of shock value.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

I think it was less the fact that he's on the cover of a magazine, but more that the picture they used makes him look like he was in One Direction. And that it's Rolling Stone, which cover usually features worthless celebrities and mediocre musicians. I honestly don't think its a big deal but I can see why some would be upset over it.

That being said I think they should have used this picture:

You mean the picture that was not released to the public until after this cover happened?

The point of the picture is that a terrorist can look like a popular kid down the block because this kid WAS a popular kid down the block. The sooner we realize terrorists don't all look the same, the better.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

You mean the picture that was not released to the public until after this cover happened?

The point of the picture is that a terrorist can look like a popular kid down the block because this kid WAS a popular kid down the block. The sooner we realize terrorists don't all look the same, the better.

Too bad many people don't have a good grasp of semantics like that. While its true Rolling Stone caters to a more intellectual crowd with their social and political articles, I still think they were deliberately looking for controversy and should've used a different pic. Maybe that blurred pic of the two brothers just before the explosions would've been a better idea.

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by Pearl

I hear the article is actually good, and doesn't glorify him in anyway.

It was. Not that the majority of people let that get in the way of their confected outrage.

[Irvine511]

Rolling Stone has a long tradition of fairly stellar long form journalism. It sounds like this article continues said tradition.

Also, the pic is a selfie. We've all taken one.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by AEON

I haven't paid for a Rolling Stone magazine since I wanted to read the Zooropa review - so about 20 years ago.

You know what? I think that was the exact last time I bought that rag too.

Although I read some other magazines during that period until the end of the decade. Since then, it's been all internet.

[IWasBored]

They put Manson on the cover.

[BoMac]

Not sure why the outrage over the cover. Like others have said, it demonstrates the many different faces that terrorism can take. I think that was the point behind the photo (a selfie, no less), although I'm sure they expected the sort of outrage and debate it generated.

The article itself is fantastic.

[KhanadaRhodes]

where was the outcry when the same photo was used by the new york times? they didn't photoshop a trendy band's shirt on him or something to make him look cooler. there's always articles like these. it's refreshing to see them write about something serious instead of another article about some overexposed musician.

[Irvine511]

But Rolling Stone is liberal.

Therefore they sympathize with terrorists.

[KhanadaRhodes]

exactly.

now i kinda wanna buy an issue just out of principle, if anyone's selling it.

[INDY500]

U.S. to seek death penalty in Boston bombing case - The Washington Post

The Justice Department announced Thursday that it would seek the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 20-year-old man whom prosecutors have accused of bombing the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring more than 200 others.

“The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a short statement.

It only took 5 years but Eric Holder has finally made a sound decision.

OK FYM, explain to the families of those killed or the 16 survivors that had legs amputated why this monster deserves to live.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

OK FYM, explain to the families of those killed or the 16 survivors that had legs amputated why this monster deserves to live.

Because all the family members unanimously agree with the application of the death penalty? And the ones who don't, who cares about their views?

[BEAL]

How can you argue against government making decisions like healthcare and death panels, yet ok with a literal death panel.

It's horrible what this person did. I am against the death penalty. I don't think it's right for the state to contradicting views when it comes to murder.

This man killed people, hurt others badly. I can see an emotional response would be to see him die.

I just don't see it as a moral response