Rolling Stone magazine with Boston bomber on cover

mondeo · 17-07-2013 02:16PM #1

Quite inappropriate wouldn't you say?

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/17/studentnews/tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Christ the Redeemer · 17-07-2013 02:18PM

He and his brother were patsies.

tommyboy2222 · 17-07-2013 02:19PM

mondeo wrote: »

Quite inappropriate wouldn't you say?

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/17/studentnews/tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

How is it inappropriate ?

They are doing a story on him.

vicwatson · 17-07-2013 02:19PM

Attention seeking Rolling Stone Mag

frag420 · 17-07-2013 02:20PM

I thought it was one of The Strokes..............

endacl · 17-07-2013 02:20PM

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

He and his brother were patsies.

How now?

Jonny7 · 17-07-2013 02:21PM

Apparently he has quite the fan club among teenage girls and conspiracy theorists

southsiderosie · 17-07-2013 02:21PM

Somewhere, a Rolling Stone editor is gently weeping tears of joy as more and more 'outraged' people talk about and link to the magazine.

17-07-2013 02:25PM

tommyboy2222 wrote: »

How is it inappropriate ?

They are doing a story on him.

because he is a suspect, hasnt yet been convicted..

17-07-2013 02:26PM

usa teenage girls love him says he dreamy stupid girls

For Forks Sake · 17-07-2013 02:26PM

endacl wrote: »

How now?

Don't feed it ffs......

danniemcq · 17-07-2013 02:27PM

They had Charles Manson on the coverin the 70s.

Whats the difference though in this and any paper putting his face on their cover

20Cent · 17-07-2013 02:27PM

Reminds me of this piece done by Charlie Brooker on screenwipe. He got a psychiatrist to outline what the media should do in the case of mass shootings and killings. The media always do the opposite. Putting this guy on the cover might create a backlash against rolling stone. Hopefully it does stupid thing to do (though I am a fan of Matt Taibbi)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

mondeo · 17-07-2013 02:32PM

tommyboy2222 wrote: »

How is it inappropriate ?

They are doing a story on him.

It gives the wrong impression seeing his face on it. It seems very out of place considering famous faces are always on the cover. A murderer gets his face on front of such a magazine like that.

southsiderosie · 17-07-2013 02:39PM

mondeo wrote: »

It gives the wrong impression seeing his face on it. It seems very out of place considering famous faces are always on the cover. A murderer gets his face on front of such a magazine like that.

How many magazines has Osama Bin Laden been on the cover of?

Most terrorists in the US are painted as wide-eyed radicals, but in this case, the accused looks like the kid next door. Maybe if the American public started to see terrorists as misguided losers rather than criminal masterminds with a coherent political agenda that justifies any means to combat their nefarious ends, we would stop interfering with other countries abroad and stomping on the legal safeguards of our constitution at home. But that is probably wishful thinking.

17-07-2013 02:42PM

If they had beards and fitted the stereotype his picture wouldn't be on the cover.

Karl Stein · 17-07-2013 02:50PM

I can just imagine all the teenage girls signing up to become Jihadettes against The Great Satan because of this photo.

Rolling Stone = Terrorist recruitment manual.

BeerWolf · 17-07-2013 03:00PM

Initially thought he was on it before the bombing.

wp_rathead · 17-07-2013 03:08PM

If they doin story on boston bombing suely they should have the photo's of the victims on cover - not the man charged with the crime..

ArmaniJeanss · 17-07-2013 03:12PM

wprathead wrote: »

If they doin story on boston bombing suely they should have the photo's of the victims on cover - not the man charged with the crime..

They want to sell copies of their magazine.
Criminals are interesting, even exciting, and make us buy; victims are a bit of a turn off for many and varied reasons.

FouxDaFaFa · 17-07-2013 03:13PM

They knew what they were doing.

By all means, write a story about him. About the dangers of radicalism.

But don't give him the cover of a magazine that has a reputation for being "cool" and don't use a picture that makes him look like a troubled rockstar.

Discuss him but don't glamourise him.

DoesNotCompute · 17-07-2013 03:14PM

tommyboy2222 wrote: »

How is it inappropriate ?

They are doing a story on him.

There's more tasteful ways of doing a story on him. They didn't need to devote the entire front page to him. They could have been more discreet.

They're quite clearly looking for attention and/or controversy in order to boost sales.

Wattle · 17-07-2013 03:17PM

What's the difference between him being on the cover of Rolling Stone and the Sunday Times?

Nodin · 17-07-2013 03:20PM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I can just imagine all the teenage girls signing up to become Jihadettes against The Great Satan because of this photo.

Rolling Stone = Terrorist recruitment manual.

He does have that wussy look they tend to like these days.

theUbiq · 17-07-2013 03:25PM

Why do you care who they put on the front of this magazine?

Didn't they have Obama himself on the cover? How many innocents have died in drone attacks? Drone attacks he ordered...

vitani · 17-07-2013 03:25PM

Ignoring the morality of it all, it's a very effective cover. I've never bought Rolling Stone before but I'm considering getting this issue to see what they have to say about him.

delbertgrady · 17-07-2013 03:26PM

He's going to buy five copies for his mother.

fishy fishy · 17-07-2013 03:29PM

clever thing to do - sales of rolling stone will soar.

SweepTheLeg · 17-07-2013 03:33PM

danniemcq wrote: »

They had Charles Manson on the coverin the 70s.

Whats the difference though in this and any paper putting his face on their cover

I agree, No different than this.