Red Mosquito

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

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.

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".

turned2black wrote:I don't get this uproar.

people are generally stupid and reactionary.

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.

Putting the kid on the cover is tacky and gross.

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.

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"

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...

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.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Now post it on facebook too.

Interested in your point of view on this issue.

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.

The whole point is to look at the picture and go "holy shit, that kid looks like...my college roommate".

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.