Rolling Stone Cover

[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.

Rolling Stone is one of the best publications of our time.

You're doing yourself a great intellectual disservice dismissing it simply because you object to one of its covers.

Personally, I can't even see what upsets you about that cover.

What does that say about you?

What is says is that he has a mind that is able to think critically and understand subtext rather than just understand things on the literal, superficial level.

 

[Esmeralda]

Oh I got the irony.

The commentary behind the picture is inappropriate. Some of his victims are still receiving medical treatment.

I went to journalism school. I know what they were trying to do and it backfired. Now they want to lie about their intentions. You see, as journalists they have certain unspoken responsibilities. One of them is not doing anything to generate sympathetic copy-cat bombers. These days journalists don't report the news, they create the news.

Glorifying mass-murder says something about the mindset of those involved. I would think a positive story during these troubled times would work better. It's too easy to focus on what is bad.

You went to journalism school? Well you must have missed the classes on rhetorical technqiues because you just don't get this one and you should.

Asking a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife" you mean? Yeah, I got that lesson.

I think in this case the intention wasn't to ask a rhetorical question but an attempt to generate sympathy for the terrorist, oh and maybe sell a few magazines in the process. That to me is the primary reason for this. When they were hammered for it they attempted to make excuses like the ones you and others have made for them. I seriously doubt these folks are that deep. I think they're desperate for attention and are willing to do just about anything to get it. I could see them waiting a couple of years but then nobody would care then, which says something about their motives.

Rolling Stone always was a bunch of overgrown college kids trying to be journalists and get high in the process. They're a cliche' that has gone the way of phones with cords. They are history. The last relevant story they wrote was the General McChrystal piece, but only because of the trouble it caused. This cover-photo I think steps over the line. It would have been better if they had done some photos of the victims instead of trying to make this punk look sexy, but then that would mean they were a serious source for information.

Nope. Using rhetorical devices is not the same thing as a rhetorical question. Look it up. Educate yourself. For example, irony is a rhetorical device.

 

[mudwhistle]

Rolling Stone is one of the best publications of our time.

You're doing yourself a great intellectual disservice dismissing it simply because you object to one of its covers.

Personally, I can't even see what upsets you about that cover.

What does that say about you?

What is says is that he has a mind that is able to think critically and understand subtext rather than just understand things on the literal, superficial level.

He said the doesn't understand why the cover upsets someone and then you claim he is so observant.

What are you, stupid?

 

[mudwhistle]

You went to journalism school? Well you must have missed the classes on rhetorical technqiues because you just don't get this one and you should.

Asking a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife" you mean? Yeah, I got that lesson.

I think in this case the intention wasn't to ask a rhetorical question but an attempt to generate sympathy for the terrorist, oh and maybe sell a few magazines in the process. That to me is the primary reason for this. When they were hammered for it they attempted to make excuses like the ones you and others have made for them. I seriously doubt these folks are that deep. I think they're desperate for attention and are willing to do just about anything to get it. I could see them waiting a couple of years but then nobody would care then, which says something about their motives.

Rolling Stone always was a bunch of overgrown college kids trying to be journalists and get high in the process. They're a cliche' that has gone the way of phones with cords. They are history. The last relevant story they wrote was the General McChrystal piece, but only because of the trouble it caused. This cover-photo I think steps over the line. It would have been better if they had done some photos of the victims instead of trying to make this punk look sexy, but then that would mean they were a serious source for information.

Nope. Using rhetorical devices is not the same thing as a rhetorical question. Look it up. Educate yourself. For example, irony is a rhetorical device.

Before you were talking about rhetorical techniques and now you're talking about rhetorical devices. Which is it?

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe you can point out the exact rhetorical device or devices that Rolling Stone is using on the cover.

Show me how smart you are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nothing "turned" this idiot into a killer.

He chose to do it. Period end of story.

There is no rationalizing to do, no need to try to understand his reasons etc.

He's a fucking murdering motherfucker because that's what he wanted to be.

 

[editec]

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.

Rolling Stone is one of the best publications of our time.

You're doing yourself a great intellectual disservice dismissing it simply because you object to one of its covers.

Personally, I can't even see what upsets you about that cover.

What does that say about you?

Gee, I don't know lad, what do you think it says about me? (as if I didn't know)

Unlike hateful knee-jerking fools I don't get my panties in a bunch over trifles.

Here's what the cover tells us:


Evil often comes in all kinds of attractive packaging


Some day that lesson might come in real handy for you, lad.

 

[editec]

What does that say about you?

What is says is that he has a mind that is able to think critically and understand subtext rather than just understand things on the literal, superficial level.

He said the doesn't understand why the cover upsets someone and then you claim he is so observant.

What are you, stupid?

Esmeralda recognizes a RHETORICAL DEVICE when he reads one, Mud.

You want to know what this board proves every damned day, kid?

The 30 POINT rule is very real.

People like you and I will never really understand each other.

 

[Esmeralda]

Asking a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife" you mean? Yeah, I got that lesson.

I think in this case the intention wasn't to ask a rhetorical question but an attempt to generate sympathy for the terrorist, oh and maybe sell a few magazines in the process. That to me is the primary reason for this. When they were hammered for it they attempted to make excuses like the ones you and others have made for them. I seriously doubt these folks are that deep. I think they're desperate for attention and are willing to do just about anything to get it. I could see them waiting a couple of years but then nobody would care then, which says something about their motives.

Rolling Stone always was a bunch of overgrown college kids trying to be journalists and get high in the process. They're a cliche' that has gone the way of phones with cords. They are history. The last relevant story they wrote was the General McChrystal piece, but only because of the trouble it caused. This cover-photo I think steps over the line. It would have been better if they had done some photos of the victims instead of trying to make this punk look sexy, but then that would mean they were a serious source for information.

Nope. Using rhetorical devices is not the same thing as a rhetorical question. Look it up. Educate yourself. For example, irony is a rhetorical device.

Before you were talking about rhetorical techniques and now you're talking about rhetorical devices. Which is it?

In this case, the terms are synonomous. Googling it will take about 2 secs. You can decide on the rhetorical device/technique being used. There may be more than one.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nope. Using rhetorical devices is not the same thing as a rhetorical question. Look it up. Educate yourself. For example, irony is a rhetorical device.

Before you were talking about rhetorical techniques and now you're talking about rhetorical devices. Which is it?

In this case, the terms are synonomous. Googling it will take about 2 secs. You can decide on the rhetorical device/technique being used. There may be more than one.

As a matter of fact there are.

And rhetorical devices are specific, such as using an oxymoron, where as rhetorical techniques aren't. Ether way, you want to rationalize the activities of Rolling Stone by arguing that they have some higher intellectual purpose, and that's supposed to excuse their obvious insensitivity as well as their overt opportunism.

Frankly, regardless how intelligent you want to think the story is, the whole thing is rather tasteless considering the circumstances, the cover not withstanding. If you've read it you'd discover that it was an obvious puff piece. Personally I think it was despicable even if you don't add the cover photo into the equation. And to be honest, the story looks like it was written by a high school student.

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing "turned" this idiot into a killer.

He chose to do it. Period end of story.

There is no rationalizing to do, no need to try to understand his reasons etc.

He's a fucking murdering motherfucker because that's what he wanted to be.

Right, we should just keep calling the "evildoers" like Dubya did.

Can't let the "evildoers" win.

Gotcha. comic book understanding of terrorism.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I found this quote from country singer Dierks Bentley last night over at the CMT website:

"It really bothers me, man. That magazine is so iconic. I can't even imagine how insulted those families must be by that image. When one of our own gets on there, it's like, 'Wow, man, you got on the cover of Rolling Stone.' It was always the coolest magazine. Something you dream about as a little kid playing guitar and singing, like, 'One day I'm gonna be on the cover of Rolling Stone.' With one picture, they ruined that," Bentley said. He's never been on the cover, and says now, "I never want to be." He added, "Why would I want to be if you can be a terrorist and get on the cover? The cover's lost all value."

Country singer Brad Paisley also gave his two cents through his Twitter page:

"I have to say, the Rolling Stone magazine cover with the bomber is in poor taste. We shouldn't make rock stars out of murderers."

To me they both said it all. I just wonder if there are any non country acts who feel the same way since they are who was normally on the front of the magazine. If it hasn't been ruined for them, then to me, they may as well be just as inhuman as the bomber guy himself.

My most favorite singer James Otto also had this to say about the magazine at his Face Book page:

Just saw the Rolling Stone cover with the Boston Bombers photo. Disgusting to immortalize this guy with the cover of a mag that's dedicated to pop stardom with that pretty boy photo like he's Justin Beiber or something. Seriously? Is that the low you have to sink to to sell magazines these days?

God bless you and him and Brad and Dierks always!!!

Holly

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nothing "turned" this idiot into a killer.

He chose to do it. Period end of story.

There is no rationalizing to do, no need to try to understand his reasons etc.

He's a fucking murdering motherfucker because that's what he wanted to be.

Right, we should just keep calling the "evildoers" like Dubya did.

Can't let the "evildoers" win.

Gotcha. comic book understanding of terrorism.

People do what they want to do.

It's the mopes like you who have an excuse for everything that are the problem.

And it's just impossible for you to break out of your two dimension pigeonhole isn't it?

I have no love of GWB, never voted for him, disagreed with most of what he did but inyour tiny sheep mind everyone either id dimwitcrap sheep or repugnantcan sheep.

Expand your mind if you can.

 

[JoeB131]

[

People do what they want to do.

It's the mopes like you who have an excuse for everything that are the problem.

And it's just impossible for you to break out of your two dimension pigeonhole isn't it?

I have no love of GWB, never voted for him, disagreed with most of what he did but inyour tiny sheep mind everyone either id dimwitcrap sheep or repugnantcan sheep.

Expand your mind if you can.

Yeah, you're a libertarian. We got it. Gummit bad. Taking care of each other bad. Understanding people Bad. Got it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

People do what they want to do.

It's the mopes like you who have an excuse for everything that are the problem.

And it's just impossible for you to break out of your two dimension pigeonhole isn't it?

I have no love of GWB, never voted for him, disagreed with most of what he did but inyour tiny sheep mind everyone either id dimwitcrap sheep or repugnantcan sheep.

Expand your mind if you can.

Yeah, you're a libertarian. We got it. Gummit bad. Taking care of each other bad. Understanding people Bad. Got it.

Not a libertarian.

I unlike you do not need a label in order to make sense of life.

 

[JoeBlam]

Tsarnaev has long hair is why....same deal with Che Guevara....long hair still equals cool to these relics from the 60's....I used to read Rolling Stone for the music articles....when they went political I stopped. What the whole "counter-culture" never understood was summed up by Pete Townsend hitting Abbie Hoffman in the head with this Fender when Abbie tried to take his microphone away.....these acts were in the music BUSINESS, period.

 

[mudwhistle]

What is says is that he has a mind that is able to think critically and understand subtext rather than just understand things on the literal, superficial level.

He said the doesn't understand why the cover upsets someone and then you claim he is so observant.

What are you, stupid?

Esmeralda recognizes a RHETORICAL DEVICE when he reads one, Mud.

You want to know what this board proves every damned day, kid?

The 30 POINT rule is very real.

People like you and I will never really understand each other.

Oh, I don't believe that. I understand you. You just don't want to understand me.

I won't lose any sleep over it just in case you're interested.



BTW, a rhetorical device is something as simple as a comma. (,) Damn, that's some heavy shit.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

The purpose of the cover was to pander to all those girls saying "he can't be guilty, he's too CUTE". The purpose of the article was to make of Tsarnaev that he is just a victim and we should feel sorry for him because he was raised in the United States with the full complement of welfare benefits. It wasn't just his photo. It was his photo airbrushed and retouched until he looks like the next Justin Bieber.

Obviously, it's above your intellectual capabilities, if you think that was the purpose of the cover.

 

[Katzndogz]

According to the editors, that was the purpose of the cover.

"The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens," the statement said.

Read more: Rolling Stone editor tweets flippant response to critics of bomber cover -- then apologizes | Fox News

 

[mudwhistle]

According to the editors, that was the purpose of the cover.

"The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens," the statement said.

Read more: Rolling Stone editor tweets flippant response to critics of bomber cover -- then apologizes | Fox News

That's the excuse. The reality of it can be gained by simply reading that puff piece of an article. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Jahar's World | Culture News | Rolling Stone