Bombs in Boston

Engage in discussions about news, politics, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
dimejinky99
what on earth am I talking about
Posts: 39789
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by dimejinky99 »

Just a thought. If Time or Newsweek were to run the same cover and article, would there be all this outcry and boycotting that rolling stone are experiencing?
I don't think so somehow
Calibrate your enthusiasm
User avatar
Biff Pocoroba
TIER 1 Essential Critical Infrastructure Worker
Posts: 4801
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:08 pm
Location: 5th floor, Bay 7, position 5740

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Biff Pocoroba »

dimejinky99 wrote:Just a thought. If Time or Newsweek were to run the same cover and article, would there be all this outcry and boycotting that rolling stone are experiencing?
I don't think so somehow
I see your point but while Rolling Stone does have good news and current issues related articles it's more of an entertainment/pop culture magazine.
nyquillyn
Misplaced My Sponge
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by nyquillyn »

I don't get this uproar. I presume this story will have some depth to it and go into his life and upbringing. Presenting it with a standard booking mug would have been lame and probably (again, I haven't read it) not representative of the story. To me, this presentation works because it reads, "This kinda cute, unassuming kid became a monster".
User avatar
Mecca
slower than 82% of US
Posts: 8516
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Mecca »

turned2black wrote:I don't get this uproar.
people are generally stupid and reactionary.
Electromatic
Rank This Poster
Posts: 3679
Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Electromatic »

turned2black wrote:I don't get this uproar. I presume this story will have some depth to it and go into his life and upbringing. Presenting it with a standard booking mug would have been lame and probably (again, I haven't read it) not representative of the story. To me, this presentation works because it reads, "This kinda cute, unassuming kid became a monster".

It's completely because of the cover. People in this country are generally not very deep and the cover glamorizes this "cute, unassuming kid" as if he were Jim Morrison when in fact he's a monster.

A lot of people aren't ok with that. This is probably the intent of Rolling Stone, because no one buys magazines anymore and this probably helps them a ton which is why you go with as controversial a cover as possible for what amounts to a not very interesting story about how two teenagers got angry about thier place in life and decided it was everyone elses fault.
Last edited by Electromatic on Thu July 18, 2013 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jorge
NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
Posts: 36490
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Jorge »

Putting the kid on the cover is tacky and gross.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
nyquillyn
Misplaced My Sponge
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by nyquillyn »

This kind of treatment has been done thousands of time by magazines, newspapers and books. I did it myself at my old newspaper, although I added a little inset of an updated photo of the killer. I got zero flak for that presentation. I don't get "glamour" from the cover, I get tragedy.
User avatar
Mecca
slower than 82% of US
Posts: 8516
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Mecca »

turned2black wrote:This kind of treatment has been done thousands of time by magazines, newspapers and books. I did it myself at my old newspaper, although I added a little inset of an updated photo of the killer. I got zero flak for that presentation. I don't get "glamour" from the cover, I get tragedy.
back to my refrain "calling someone a monster is not glamorizing them"
User avatar
VinylGuy
jeeeesus relax already
Posts: 42768
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by VinylGuy »

Some years ago we experienced a terrible tragedy in Argentina; a club burned out during a performance of a band and 200 people died and many others were hurt terribly.
Only a month later, the local Rolling Stone put a cover of the tragedy, with "information", musicians talking about the tragedy, etc.
At the time i was pretty bummed with this; its exploitive, its really tasteless to have a recent event like this on the cover just to sell more magazines. Im not against the information per se, some of those articles are actually good but to put them on the cover? why not wait for something like that?
In this case i think its worst, im sure they are not glamorizing him; but why put him on the cover? there is no need really...
BONE FUCKIN´ TOMAHAWK.
User avatar
given2trade
AnalLog
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 4:46 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by given2trade »

theplatypus wrote:Putting the kid on the cover is tacky and gross.
I agree w/ Jorge and it takes a lot to make me scream "outrage". I think most of the world is way too PC. But this is a dumb ploy to sell magazines. They know there is a large faction of teenage idiot girls who are in love w/ him and will buy this and put it on their wall. It's just unnecessary.
nyquillyn
Misplaced My Sponge
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by nyquillyn »

cutuphalfdead wrote:Now post it on facebook too.
Interested in your point of view on this issue.
User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37327
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Norah »

turned2black wrote:I don't get this uproar. I presume this story will have some depth to it and go into his life and upbringing. Presenting it with a standard booking mug would have been lame and probably (again, I haven't read it) not representative of the story. To me, this presentation works because it reads, "This kinda cute, unassuming kid became a monster".
Thank you! I've heard so many people say "I don't mind the article, I just don't like how they're making him look cool with the picture, he's not cool!". Those people are completely missing the point.
User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37327
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Norah »

The whole point is to look at the picture and go "holy shit, that kid looks like...my college roommate".
User avatar
Jorge
NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
Posts: 36490
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Jorge »

cutuphalfdead wrote:The whole point is to look at the picture and go "holy shit, that kid looks like...my college roommate".
The point is to generate controversy and sell issues. That's exactly what it's doing.

I think you're being disingenuous. Like it or not, and despite of its devolution into a vapid tabloid rag, being on the cover of Rolling Stone still has a certain pedigree to it, and remains a measure of pop culture stature-- more so than 99.999% of other publications. It's completely understandable for people to be uneasy with having this scumbag on the cover. It's symptomatic of the media's piss-poor, sensationalist handling of violent tragedies, and it shows a lack of respect for the victims and their families. It's gross.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37327
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Norah »

theplatypus wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:The whole point is to look at the picture and go "holy shit, that kid looks like...my college roommate".
The point is to generate controversy and sell issues. That's exactly what it's doing.
Can't it be both?

Is this just an issue because it's Rolling Stone and the pop culture iconography that you mention? If Time or Newsweek did the same article with the same picture would it be a big deal?
User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37327
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Norah »

turned2black wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:Now post it on facebook too.
Interested in your point of view on this issue.
Full disclosure: When I posted on Facebook "I, for one, applaud Rolling Stone" I was just trying to troll the mob.
User avatar
Jorge
NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
Posts: 36490
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Jorge »

cutuphalfdead wrote: Is this just an issue because it's Rolling Stone and the pop culture iconography that you mention? If Time or Newsweek did the same article with the same picture would it be a big deal?
I have no way of knowing that. I'd still think it's gross.

The piece is excellent, by the way. It's the presentation I take issue with.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
User avatar
Bee Girl
likes rhythmic things that butt up against each other
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri December 14, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Bee Girl »

1. Why make a magazine if you don't intend to sell it? Their intention is always to sell issues. I don't think they care about controversy, people will choose to create controversy over just about anything.

2. How would people know there is something they might be interested in reading in that magazine if something on the cover doesn't prompt them to pick it up? I ignore Rolling Stone as a rule, but if the cover catches my attention and inside is an excellent article on something I may want to read, I'd be bummed to miss it. Magazines (and newspapers) typically use a photo that relates to their featured article for the cover, regardless of the genre of the magazine. This photo was previously well-known and has been used by NYT and others, from my understanding, without issue.

3. How would you prefer they make it clear that this issue's featured article is about one of the Boston Bombers?
User avatar
@SkitchP
RM Elitist
Posts: 9995
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by @SkitchP »

yeah, I really dont see the issue with it at all.

It's a magazine with a well known individual on the cover. The newspaper does it every day. The news stations will put on 24 hour coverage of events to capitalize on tragedies and make money off them, almost putting their own angle above the truth. If Rolling Stone knew that had a tremendous piece on it, what better way to get that information out there then forcing people to talk about it?
dimejinky99 wrote: Hang on I check on my Grindr
User avatar
Jorge
NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
Posts: 36490
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: Bombs in Boston

Post by Jorge »

All fair points, guys. I think you're overlooking the larger impact of slapping this guy on the cover of Rolling Stone like a teen heartthrob, and what it says about the media treatment of violent murderers (and its possible sociological repercussions at large-- not that RS has ever been a bastion of responsible reporting). I'm going to succumb to laze and hastiness, and link to two articles that state my position more succinctly and eloquently than I can.

The Boston Globe's "Rolling Stone Cover and Act of Irresponsibility"

Beacon Journal's "Cover War: Rolling Stone's Problem"

And to labor the point, this.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
Post Reply