Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber

[PosthumanHeresy]

Instead of literally judging a book by its cover, maybe we could talk about the actual content of the article.

The article was extremely well done, and was pretty much what I expected. The article is not the issue. Since nobody seems to mention it, here's the biggest issue:



Maybe that will help explain the problem.

[Distind]

Uh, it's a cover, a mechanism to sell magazines and maintain brand identity. There is simply no way they'd use anything but the picture that went the best with their own image, and it does in fact match with the article's theme of "Hey, the kid was fucking broken and no one fucking noticed". Which is really much more than I expected.

That there are fangirls over the prick is a secondary thing.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Uh, it's a cover, a mechanism to sell magazines and maintain brand identity. There is simply no way they'd use anything but the picture that went the best with their own image, and it does in fact match with the article's theme of "Hey, the kid was fucking broken and no one fucking noticed". Which is really much more than I expected.

That there are fangirls over the prick is a secondary thing.

And that's the biggest problem. The implications of their actions are secondary to the money. It's a photo that makes him look like a glamorous rock star to be swooned over. That should be the last thing we make a major photo. There's something deeply wrong when it's somehow acceptable, since it sells.

[Yla]

How would you have styled the cover, Posthuman?

[Distind]

Uh, it's a cover, a mechanism to sell magazines and maintain brand identity. There is simply no way they'd use anything but the picture that went the best with their own image, and it does in fact match with the article's theme of "Hey, the kid was fucking broken and no one fucking noticed". Which is really much more than I expected.

That there are fangirls over the prick is a secondary thing.

And that's the biggest problem. The implications of their actions are secondary to the money. It's a photo that makes him look like a glamorous rock star to be swooned over. That should be the last thing we make a major photo. There's something deeply wrong when it's somehow acceptable, since it sells.

That's not an implication, that's the reality of it.

Acceptable has not been a thing in the media since free speach was a valued thing again rather than innoffensive speach. You know all those various obsenity laws and industry wide codes that fell apart over the last 50 years? Yeah, turns out the industry was just doing everything it could to sell product then too, but were forced into limits. Now they don't have half as many limits and will totally present things however they can.

That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.

[PosthumanHeresy]

How would you have styled the cover, Posthuman?

I would have used his mugshot. If you want to join in the serious discourse, you need to act like the rest of the serious magazines. Murder is not to be glamorized, nor should murderers.

Uh, it's a cover, a mechanism to sell magazines and maintain brand identity. There is simply no way they'd use anything but the picture that went the best with their own image, and it does in fact match with the article's theme of "Hey, the kid was fucking broken and no one fucking noticed". Which is really much more than I expected.

That there are fangirls over the prick is a secondary thing.

And that's the biggest problem. The implications of their actions are secondary to the money. It's a photo that makes him look like a glamorous rock star to be swooned over. That should be the last thing we make a major photo. There's something deeply wrong when it's somehow acceptable, since it sells.

That's not an implication, that's the reality of it.

Acceptable has not been a thing in the media since free speach was a valued thing again rather than innoffensive speach. You know all those various obsenity laws and industry wide codes that fell apart over the last 50 years? Yeah, turns out the industry was just doing everything it could to sell product then too, but were forced into limits. Now they don't have half as many limits and will totally present things however they can.

That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.

And, on one hand, I am glad about that. I'm against obscenity laws and industry wide codes. And, I get their point. They wanted to present the disconnect between how he looked, and how he ended up. So, in fact, I'm going to revise my previous answer, because a better one has come to mind. One side of his face could be that, and the other side, the mugshot. Bam. The point is made, and it's made oh so much better. On one side, the glamorous-looking teen, on the other, the bomber responsible for the death of a small child.

[Sylvana]

That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.

I think the problem I have is that a rock magazine really has nothing to do with the Boston bombings. Despite the article being well written, it is a pretty blatant attempt to squeeze every last bit of media attention out of the bombings, which really just goes to show how sick and desperate the media have become.

The media really does idolize celebrity criminals because it makes them money. However in the process they do also affect the opinions of others which is incredibly unhealthy for society. Hence, while stories about the people and events involved in the Boston bombing should be printed, they need to maintain their scope.

[PosthumanHeresy]

That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.

I think the problem I have is that a rock magazine really has nothing to do with the Boston bombings. Despite the article being well written, it is a pretty blatant attempt to squeeze every last bit of media attention out of the bombings, which really just goes to show how sick and desperate the media have become.

The media really does idolize celebrity criminals because it makes them money. However in the process they do also affect the opinions of others which is incredibly unhealthy for society. Hence, while stories about the people and events involved in the Boston bombing should be printed, they need to maintain their scope.

Agreed. I like the article itself, it's informative, but really, Rolling Stone is not where it belongs, and if Rolling Stone is going to do this, they need to learn to do it correctly. If they had done something that doesn't make him look like a rock star, I'd give them a break. However, they did the most "Look up to this person!" style picture possible. That is not acceptable, especially because it really is the worst message to send. You wanna be somebody? You can end lives and go down in history.

[Her3tiK]

That said, in this case it really does work, because they aren't the only ones projecting that image, they are however some of the only ones to show you that image and then start detailing how fucked up the kid really was despite appearances. Which works remarkably well when it comes to a magazine typically about rock.

I think the problem I have is that a rock magazine really has nothing to do with the Boston bombings. Despite the article being well written, it is a pretty blatant attempt to squeeze every last bit of media attention out of the bombings, which really just goes to show how sick and desperate the media have become.

The media really does idolize celebrity criminals because it makes them money. However in the process they do also affect the opinions of others which is incredibly unhealthy for society. Hence, while stories about the people and events involved in the Boston bombing should be printed, they need to maintain their scope.

Agreed. I like the article itself, it's informative, but really, Rolling Stone is not where it belongs, and if Rolling Stone is going to do this, they need to learn to do it correctly. If they had done something that doesn't make him look like a rock star, I'd give them a break. However, they did the most "Look up to this person!" style picture possible. That is not acceptable, especially because it really is the worst message to send. You wanna be somebody? You can end lives and go down in history.

RS actually tends to have pretty in-depth articles about politics and current events, which tends to be the cover story when they aren't including a piece on some huge musician (though that cover tends to be a cartoon caricature of the topic). To that end, the piece itself fits in rather well with RS's style, though the cover image is somewhat out of place by comparison. The Colbert Report actually has a pretty good bit on this; it's worth checking out to get some extra perspective.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkQxLdYUr_g" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkQxLdYUr_g</a>

[Lithp]

Bad people can't look good. That might justify their behavior in the eyes of the weak-minded who already look for any excuse to justify their behavior. Reality is offensive!

[PosthumanHeresy]

Bad people can't look good. That might justify their behavior in the eyes of the weak-minded who already look for any excuse to justify their behavior. Reality is offensive!

Bad people shouldn't be made to look good, because when you make bad people look good, it causes people who want to look good to become bad people. You know what's funny? How ironic this is. From the June 1999 issue of Rolling Stone, the article Columbine: Whose Fault Is It? by Marilyn Manson definitely should be read repeatedly by the magazine. The entire thing is applicable, just like every other time these things happen, but the opening is the best for this.

It is sad to think that the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder. The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel's brains in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence. Whether you interpret the Bible as literature or as the final word of whatever God may be, Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around. A half-naked dead man hangs in most homes and around our necks, and we have just taken that for granted all our lives. Is it a symbol of hope or hopelessness? The world's most famous murder-suicide was also the birth of the death icon – the blueprint for celebrity. Unfortunately, for all of their inspiring morality, nowhere in the Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue.

A lot of people forget or never realize that I started my band as a criticism of these very issues of despair and hypocrisy. The name Marilyn Manson has never celebrated the sad fact that America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes. They just created two new ones when they plastered those dip-shits Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' pictures on the front of every newspaper. Don't be surprised if every kid who gets pushed around has two new idols.

We applaud the creation of a bomb whose sole purpose is to destroy all of mankind, and we grow up watching our president's brains splattered all over Texas. Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised. Does anyone think the Civil War was the least bit civil? If television had existed, you could be sure they would have been there to cover it, or maybe even participate in it, like their violent car chase of Princess Di. Disgusting vultures looking for corpses, exploiting, fucking, filming and serving it up for our hungry appetites in a gluttonous display of endless human stupidity.

When it comes down to who's to blame for the high school murders in Littleton, Colorado, throw a rock and you'll hit someone who's guilty. We're the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we're the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake right in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.

It's pretty fucking pathetic when Rolling Stone is participating in the same behavior it once helped decry. These hypocrites should read the back issues of their own magazine. You wanna know something funny? There was another magazine that did something similar to this. It was an issue of Al-Qaeda's personal magazine. Congratulations, Rolling Stone.

[Katsuro]

Bad people can't look good. That might justify their behavior in the eyes of the weak-minded who already look for any excuse to justify their behavior. Reality is offensive!

Bad people shouldn't be made to look good, because when you make bad people look good, it causes people who want to look good to become bad people.

No, they were already bad people.  It doesn't turn people bad, but it might lead bad people to do bad things. Nobody who wasn't already so inclined is going to murder a bunch of people because of a nice photos on magazine covers.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Bad people can't look good. That might justify their behavior in the eyes of the weak-minded who already look for any excuse to justify their behavior. Reality is offensive!

Bad people shouldn't be made to look good, because when you make bad people look good, it causes people who want to look good to become bad people.

No, they were already bad people.  It doesn't turn people bad, but it might lead bad people to do bad things. Nobody who wasn't already so inclined is going to murder a bunch of people because of a nice photos on magazine covers.

I'm not talking about psychopaths and sociopaths. I am talking about decent people who feel they've been pushed too far. If you read the article, this guy isn't an evil monster, he's a kid who lost his way and felt this was the only option left to him. I'm not saying it's good, or right, or moral. I am saying that when a society makes it clear that your voice will be heard if you permanently silence others, people are going to do that. When a society will make you famous for rehensible actions, it's perfectly logical for someone who feels that they need to be heard to do this. When you feel powerless and voiceless, and the media shows you that your voice will be heard if you kill people, lives are going to be ended.

[Lithp]

They didn't make him look good, they used an already existing image. We can argue all damn day about how people might react. The fact is that Jahar idolization existed before this issue & we have no way of knowing what effect, if any, this had on that trend.

[ironbite]

I got the perfect response to this non-issue.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0</a>

Ironbite-seriously.