Rolling Stone Cover

[mike.redd1266]

Was it me or is anyone else as shocked to see Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine? As one who has never purchased this particular magazine, I am forced to pass judgement on the entire publication based on one cover. As a result, I don't see myself purchasing this magazine any time soon or ever for that matter.

Here's what's more amazing too, Rolling Stone is defending themselves -- Rolling Stone defends Tsarnaev cover | Rare -- maybe it's just me who remembers the Boston Bombing still.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Gonna see my picture on the cover.

Gonna buy five copies for my mutha.

Gonna see my smilin' face.

On the cover of the Rollin' Stone.

 

[Two Thumbs]

rs is a liberal rag that's trying to stay relevant.

their inability to see and report reality is VERY limited.

aside from that

no, it's not shocking to see them defending a murderer

 

[Luddly Neddite]

rs is a liberal rag that's trying to stay relevant.

their inability to see and report reality is VERY limited.

aside from that

no, it's not shocking to see them defending a murderer

EXACTLY what part of the article "defends a murderer"?

Why is it that rw's are ALWAYS hysterical over the wrong things?

Why don't you fools read the article

BEFORE

you judge its contents?

Because rw's NEVER base their hysteria on FACTS.

Maroons.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How many of you rw idiots ever complained about George Bush's photo being on any magazine cover? After all, he was responsible for the wanton and useless murders of more than 4000 Americans and many more thousands of Iraqis.

Have a little gumption and think for yourself. You really do not have to ALWAYS be a stupid sheeple.

Read the Rolling Stone article.

 

[Katzndogz]

George Bush was president.

Having the picture on the cover is one thing. Giving it the glam treatment is another. The photograph was obviously tarted up to be appealing.

 

[JoeB131]

George Bush was president.

Having the picture on the cover is one thing. Giving it the glam treatment is another. The photograph was obviously tarted up to be appealing.

Was it?

Frankly, the title indicates that it's a pretty good expose on how radical islam and the kid's family lead him the wrong way.

But I guess if you are more comfortable only thinking of terrorists as cardboard cutouts and not understanding them, that's good, too.

 

[waltky]

Granny says the editor musta been high on pot...

Rolling Stone Magazine Draws Ire for Featuring Tsarnaev
July 17, 2013 > The American magazine, Rolling Stone, has stirred up a hornets’ nest of controversy by putting a photo of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of its August issue.

The magazine says its article on Tsarnaev was based on interviews with his friends, neighbors, teachers and Boston area law enforcement officials. It describes the story as a “heartbreaking account of how a charming kid with a bright future became a monster.”

The cover photo of Tsarnaev looks like those on many of Rolling Stone’s issues featuring rock stars. Some Twitter users described its use as disgraceful. “This is unacceptable and a slap in the face for those he killed and maimed,” said one comment on the magazine’s Facebook page. “I will never buy a Rolling Stone ever again. Disgraceful,” said another.

Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan are accused of carrying out the April 15 attack in Boston that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others. Tamerlan was killed in a shootout with police and Dzhokhar has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Rolling Stone has often stirred controversy with its covers. One of the most controversial came in 1970 when the magazine put serial killer Charles Manson on the cover.

Rolling Stone Magazine Draws Ire for Featuring Tsarnaev

See also:

Thousands Condemn 'Rolling Stones' Boston Bomber Cover
July 18, 2013 > U.S.-based magazine Rolling Stone is under fire for using a picture of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of its upcoming issue.

The photo, unveiled by the magazine Wednesday, depicts a youthful Tsarnaev with soft eyes and long, flowing curly hair. The magazine chose the photo to promote its in-depth story on Tsarnaev's life leading up to the April 15 attacks. But it was instantly compared to similar portraits of legendary rock stars Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison, prompting accusations that Rolling Stone was glamorizing terrorism. Thousands of people went on Facebook and Twitter to condemn the magazine, with many vowing to never buy another issue. A handful of retailers, including two national drug chain stores, have refused to sell the issue.

In a letter to publisher Jann Wenner, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said the survivors of the attack were more deserving of a cover than Tsarnaev, but added "I no longer feel that Rolling Stone deserves them." The magazine issued a statement late Wednesday defending its decision to use the photo, saying it falls within commitment to "serious and thoughtful coverage" of the world's biggest "political and cultural issues of the day." The issue officially goes on sale Friday.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan are accused of plotting the attack on the famous race that killed three people dead and left more than 260 others wounded, many of them losing legs and other limbs from the shrapnel caused by the homemade bombs. The younger Tsarnaev was wounded in a shootout with police that left Tamerlan dead, and was captured a day later. The pair are also accused in the shooting death of a police officer with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology .

Source

 

[Esmeralda]

Was it me or is anyone else as shocked to see Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine? As one who has never purchased this particular magazine, I am forced to pass judgement on the entire publication based on one cover. As a result, I don't see myself purchasing this magazine any time soon or ever for that matter.

Here's what's more amazing too, Rolling Stone is defending themselves -- Rolling Stone defends Tsarnaev cover | Rare -- maybe it's just me who remembers the Boston Bombing still.

Did you have a fit when Osama Bin Laden was on the cover of The New Republic?

 

[Skull Pilot]

George Bush was president.

Having the picture on the cover is one thing. Giving it the glam treatment is another. The photograph was obviously tarted up to be appealing.

Was it?

Frankly, the title indicates that it's a pretty good expose on how radical islam and the kid's family lead him the wrong way.

But I guess if you are more comfortable only thinking of terrorists as cardboard cutouts and not understanding them, that's good, too.

He wasn't "led" he chose.

My god you do like your excuses don't you?

 

[mudwhistle]

rs is a liberal rag that's trying to stay relevant.

their inability to see and report reality is VERY limited.

aside from that

no, it's not shocking to see them defending a murderer

EXACTLY what part of the article "defends a murderer"?

Why is it that rw's are ALWAYS hysterical over the wrong things?

Why don't you fools read the article

BEFORE

you judge its contents?

Because rw's NEVER base their hysteria on FACTS.

Maroons.

The problem is the Tiger Beat photo they used.

If you can't understand that there's no hope for you.

Personally I think you just like supporting despicable behavior. It's clearly why you continue to support the actions of the current administration.



I really don't care about Fox News. Some of their stories are horseshit and idiotic. I won't dwell on some story about the Rolling Stone. A magazine that has had it's time and that time has come and gone.

 

[JoeB131]

George Bush was president.

Having the picture on the cover is one thing. Giving it the glam treatment is another. The photograph was obviously tarted up to be appealing.

Was it?

Frankly, the title indicates that it's a pretty good expose on how radical islam and the kid's family lead him the wrong way.

But I guess if you are more comfortable only thinking of terrorists as cardboard cutouts and not understanding them, that's good, too.

He wasn't "led" he chose.

My god you do like your excuses don't you?

You like to assume because you've lived a comfortable life, everyone else should make the same choices you have.

Frankly, the first time you encountered real adversity, you'd probably break bad. You'd be the first one resorting to cannibalism on a desert island.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Was it?

Frankly, the title indicates that it's a pretty good expose on how radical islam and the kid's family lead him the wrong way.

But I guess if you are more comfortable only thinking of terrorists as cardboard cutouts and not understanding them, that's good, too.

He wasn't "led" he chose.

My god you do like your excuses don't you?

You like to assume because you've lived a comfortable life, everyone else should make the same choices you have.

Frankly, the first time you encountered real adversity, you'd probably break bad. You'd be the first one resorting to cannibalism on a desert island.

You have no clue how I grew up so don't even try that bullshit with me.

He was a 19 year old man and he chose to set off explosives in a crowd.

End of story.

 

[JoeB131]

He wasn't "led" he chose.

My god you do like your excuses don't you?

You like to assume because you've lived a comfortable life, everyone else should make the same choices you have.

Frankly, the first time you encountered real adversity, you'd probably break bad. You'd be the first one resorting to cannibalism on a desert island.

You have no clue how I grew up so don't even try that bullshit with me.

He was a 19 year old man and he chose to set off explosives in a crowd.

End of story.

He was a 19 year old man who grew up in a war zone. Whose entire family had been traumitized by war.

Again- our biggest problem in the Islamic World is we keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest and wondering why we get stung.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You like to assume because you've lived a comfortable life, everyone else should make the same choices you have.

Frankly, the first time you encountered real adversity, you'd probably break bad. You'd be the first one resorting to cannibalism on a desert island.

You have no clue how I grew up so don't even try that bullshit with me.

He was a 19 year old man and he chose to set off explosives in a crowd.

End of story.

He was a 19 year old man who grew up in a war zone. Whose entire family had been traumitized by war.

Again- our biggest problem in the Islamic World is we keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest and wondering why we get stung.

More excuses.

Blame our foreign policy, which btw I disagree with completely and I have always been opposed to our occupation in the Middle East.

But sooner or later you have to hold people responsible for their acts. You refuse to do that.

 

[mudwhistle]

He wasn't "led" he chose.

My god you do like your excuses don't you?

You like to assume because you've lived a comfortable life, everyone else should make the same choices you have.

Frankly, the first time you encountered real adversity, you'd probably break bad. You'd be the first one resorting to cannibalism on a desert island.

You have no clue how I grew up so don't even try that bullshit with me.

He was a 19 year old man and he chose to set off explosives in a crowd.

End of story.

Yeah, but his story is so sad..........

 

[JoeB131]

You have no clue how I grew up so don't even try that bullshit with me.

He was a 19 year old man and he chose to set off explosives in a crowd.

End of story.

He was a 19 year old man who grew up in a war zone. Whose entire family had been traumitized by war.

Again- our biggest problem in the Islamic World is we keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest and wondering why we get stung.

More excuses.

Blame our foreign policy, which btw I disagree with completely and I have always been opposed to our occupation in the Middle East.

But sooner or later you have to hold people responsible for their acts. You refuse to do that.

I'm holding him responsible. I think he should go to jail for the rest of his life.

Understanding WHY people are what they are isn't making excuses for them.

I'm glad we killed Bin Laden, but I don't forget the fact that the only reason we had a Bin Laden problem is that we armed him to kill Soviets because they were teaching girls to read in Afghanistan, those Commie Bastards.

 

[JoeB131]

You like to assume because you've lived a comfortable life, everyone else should make the same choices you have.

Frankly, the first time you encountered real adversity, you'd probably break bad. You'd be the first one resorting to cannibalism on a desert island.

You have no clue how I grew up so don't even try that bullshit with me.

He was a 19 year old man and he chose to set off explosives in a crowd.

End of story.

Yeah, but his story is so sad..........

Not sure if it is sad or not. It's the world we live in. A system of wealth disparity and war for profit that you seem to think is just oooh, sooo fine.

 

[Esmeralda]

rs is a liberal rag that's trying to stay relevant.

their inability to see and report reality is VERY limited.

aside from that

no, it's not shocking to see them defending a murderer

EXACTLY what part of the article "defends a murderer"?

Why is it that rw's are ALWAYS hysterical over the wrong things?

Why don't you fools read the article

BEFORE

you judge its contents?

Because rw's NEVER base their hysteria on FACTS.

Maroons.

The problem is the Tiger Beat photo they used.

If you can't understand that there's no hope for you.

Personally I think you just like supporting despicable behavior. It's clearly why you continue to support the actions of the current administration.



I really don't care about Fox News. Some of their stories are horseshit and idiotic. I won't dwell on some story about the Rolling Stone. A magazine that has had it's time and that time has come and gone.

The type of photo used is used in irony. If you can't understand that, perhaps there is no hope for you. I have noticed, being on this message board, how literal minded most right wingers tend to be.

 

[Sallow]

rs is a liberal rag that's trying to stay relevant.

their inability to see and report reality is VERY limited.

aside from that

no, it's not shocking to see them defending a murderer

Well no..that's not what they are doing.

Charlie Manson made the cover as well.

They didn't defend him either.