Page 27 of 33
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Thu July 18, 2013 10:21 pm
by Norah
I'd be more inclined to agree with you if it wasn't corresponding of a well written, journalistically sound article. I think using a humanizing picture of him on their cover illustrates the point the article is trying to make. Using a surveillance still of him placing the bombs wouldn't have done that.
Boston Globe wrote:Make no mistake, this is a legitimate story for a magazine. While plenty of media coverage has rightly focused on the victims and survivors of the April 15th attack — and it wouldn’t have hurt Rolling Stone to acknowledge them on the cover as well — the question of what motivated Tsarnaev and how a seemingly mild-mannered teenager allegedly came to commit an act of unimaginable cruelty is worth probing. The article itself, reported and written by Rolling Stone contributing editor Janet Reitman, was released Wednesday and lays claim to be responsible journalism.
Using a picture that makes him look like every other college student in America is the most appropriate way to capture that question in a single photograph on the cover of the magazine. This isn't sensationalism for the sake of sensationalism.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Thu July 18, 2013 10:22 pm
by Birds in Hell
given2trade wrote:But this is a dumb ploy to sell magazines.
Probably.
given2trade wrote:It's just unnecessary.
Not if it works!
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Thu July 18, 2013 11:52 pm
by given2trade
Jorge said:
I think you're overlooking the larger impact of slapping this guy on the cover of Rolling Stone like a teen heartthrob
That's what it comes down to. Can put him on there but the way they did it? Very poor taste.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 12:39 am
by @SkitchP
theplatypus wrote:
And to labor the point,
this.
Just in the couple seconds...
Don Draper. Television Character that is considered "cool" for his cruelty.
Casey Anthony- Likely murdered her daughter, and got famous for it. (wait, is that a photoshop?)
Lil wayne- numerous arrests, and hospitalizations for (likely) drug related seizures
Whitney Houston- Before dying of her addiction spent the better part of a decade as a total basket case
Amy Winehouse- major addiction problems that led to a young death.. same with Cobain. and Morrison. and Hendrix.
Snoop Dogg- was involved in a murder.
Survived significant addiction Problems.. Billy Joe armstrong, Robert Downey, Russell brand, eminem.
Rick Ross- Wrote a song advocating rape basically.
Rolling Stone, despite their "cool factor" have ALWAYS glorified questionable life choices, some with tragic results. And to a large degree, their cover had become irrelevant, and with one single act, they have attached a meaning to it again. If not for this article how many people on this music based message board could name a cover that was released in the last year?
I not only totally am okay with the cover, I think it was pretty brilliant in terms of marketing and more importantly in terms of starting a discussion. Most covers get you to maybe open up a magazine and read an article.. this one has you TALKING about it. It's forced people to examine what Rolling Stone is saying, and it seems like a pretty important point. This kid could be anyone, and that picture on the front not only reminds us of that, it makes the entire point with just one shot.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 12:43 am
by Norah
@SkitchP wrote:This kid could be anyone, and that picture on the front not only reminds us of that, it makes the entire point with just one shot.
this!
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 12:45 am
by Birds in Hell
@SkitchP wrote:I not only totally am okay with the cover, I think it was pretty brilliant in terms of marketing and more importantly in terms of starting a discussion.
Agreed.
The media glorifies questionable life choices for no other reason that it
sells. It's interesting. People can't get enough bad news.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 1:00 am
by BurtReynolds
i don't have an opinion on this.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 1:03 am
by doug rr
BurtReynolds wrote:i don't have an opinion on this.
nor do I unless I dont care is an option
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 1:54 am
by given2trade
cutuphalfdead wrote:@SkitchP wrote:This kid could be anyone, and that picture on the front not only reminds us of that, it makes the entire point with just one shot.
this!
eh that's such bullshit
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 2:10 am
by Jorge
Yeah. I think we disagree on a fundamental level here. No sense in prattling on about it.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 2:46 am
by nyquillyn
cutuphalfdead wrote:@SkitchP wrote:This kid could be anyone, and that picture on the front not only reminds us of that, it makes the entire point with just one shot.
this!
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 4:53 am
by Mecca
given2trade wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:@SkitchP wrote:This kid could be anyone, and that picture on the front not only reminds us of that, it makes the entire point with just one shot.
this!
eh that's such bullshit
I remember the water cooler discussion after he was identified was exactly that, though.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 5:17 am
by given2trade
Mecca wrote:given2trade wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:@SkitchP wrote:This kid could be anyone, and that picture on the front not only reminds us of that, it makes the entire point with just one shot.
this!
eh that's such bullshit
I remember the water cooler discussion after he was identified was exactly that, though.
Was the water cooler trying to sell water coolers to teenage girls?
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 5:30 am
by Norah
given2trade wrote:Mecca wrote:given2trade wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:@SkitchP wrote:This kid could be anyone, and that picture on the front not only reminds us of that, it makes the entire point with just one shot.
this!
eh that's such bullshit
I remember the water cooler discussion after he was identified was exactly that, though.
Was the water cooler trying to sell water coolers to teenage girls?
Rolling Stone may be pop culture but it's not Seventeen.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 5:32 am
by given2trade
cutuphalfdead wrote:given2trade wrote:Mecca wrote:given2trade wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:@SkitchP wrote:This kid could be anyone, and that picture on the front not only reminds us of that, it makes the entire point with just one shot.
this!
eh that's such bullshit
I remember the water cooler discussion after he was identified was exactly that, though.
Was the water cooler trying to sell water coolers to teenage girls?
Rolling Stone may be pop culture but it's not Seventeen.
I agree but I can assure you that hundreds if not thousands of teenage girls who are "in love" with him rushed to buy the issue and put it on their wall.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 6:58 am
by Peeps
Hmmm the kid looks like a younger G2T....put a white throw-rug of a dog with him on there and it could be him. Subconsciously I think this is why he is so against it....it reminds him of himself with out Luke. This raises his stress levels like we are seeing right now
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 7:20 am
by Birds in Hell
given2trade wrote:I agree but I can assure you that hundreds if not thousands of teenage girls who are "in love" with him rushed to buy the issue and put it on their wall.
Aside from the fact that I find that incredibly hard to believe, I don't really think it's anything to worry about.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 7:27 am
by Jorge
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 7:33 am
by Birds in Hell
theplatypus wrote:http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/state-trooper-who-released-boston-bomber-photos-relieved-of
Sgt. Sean Murphy, a tactical photographer with the Mass. State Police, was relieved of his duty after releasing photos of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev manhunt to Boston Magazine Thursday.
I can't imagine he was surprised by that outcome.
Re: Bombs in Boston
Posted: Fri July 19, 2013 7:43 am
by Norah
Yeah no shit.