Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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.
Are people these days really this stupid?
The purpose of showing this kid's face on the cover of the magazine is to show that real life monsters don't normally look like Frankenstein...they look like the people who live next door.
This concept seems to be above the average American's intellectual capabilities, judging by the dumb pointless outrage over the cover.
BTW,
A 19 year old's brain is not fully developed, yet. Most people of that age make stupid decisions. Maybe, not as stupid as this guy. But he was influenced by an older brother.
Can anyone posting on this message board honestly claim that they never did anything stupid between the ages of 16-21?
If you make that claim, you are a liar.
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 quote in no way supports your assertion, shithead.
They weren't trying to pander to young girls, or make him appear to be the victim. There's nothing in this quote that supports what you wrote.
Like I wrote...the article is above you intellectual capability.
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 quote in no way supports your assertion, shithead.
They weren't trying to pander to young girls, or make him appear to be the victim. There's nothing in this quote that supports what you wrote.
Like I wrote...the article is above you intellectual capability.
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.
Are people these days really this stupid?
The purpose of showing this kid's face on the cover of the magazine is to show that real life monsters don't normally look like Frankenstein...they look like the people who live next door.
This concept seems to be above the average American's intellectual capabilities, judging by the dumb pointless outrage over the cover.
BTW,
A 19 year old's brain is not fully developed, yet. Most people of that age make stupid decisions. Maybe, not as stupid as this guy. But he was influenced by an older brother.
Can anyone posting on this message board honestly claim that they never did anything stupid between the ages of 16-21?
If you make that claim, you are a liar.
I made some stupid decisions in my life, still do. Billions have been 16-21 and made stupid decisions, however 99% do not involve the killing and maiming of others. Despite his history and his past, his brothers influence and on and on, he made decisions that have damaged others for the rest of their lives.
Ted Bundy was the guy next door, this kid, is the kid next door. He is getting his 15 minutes of fame through Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone has every right to publish the paper with his face on the cover and everyone has a right to their own opinion on Rolling Stones choice.
I don't sympathize with this kid at all, what he did is wrong. His stupid decisions, still carries personal responsibility.
Did Rolling Stone mention he ran over and killed his brother trying to get away?
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.
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.
Actually it's the same photo the New York Times used two months ago, only just the headshot:
Remember all the fake outrage over that?
Me neither.
It's a fucking photo. A photo makes no comment by itself. Actually the RS cover does make a comment in the text below the photo, referring to him as a "monster".
What the hypocrites are yelling at RS about is their failure to join in the Two Minutes Hate Demonization Plan by drawing, say, a Hitler mustache on Tsarnaev. Or perhaps pulling a Fox Noise retouch, with the shadowed eyes, yellowed teeth and enlarged nose:
RS is being taken to task for the crime of insufficient hatemongrering. As the RS editor tweeted, ""I guess we should have drawn a dick on Dzhokhar's face or something?".
They've drugged the populace to such an extent that we not only expect biased journalism, but some of us actually complain when we don't get it. You whiners are never happy with reality. Always gotta tweak it. SMH...
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.
Actually it's the same photo the New York Times used two months ago, only just the headshot:
Remember all the fake outrage over that?
Me neither.
It's a fucking photo. A photo makes no comment by itself. Actually the RS cover does make a comment in the text below the photo, referring to him as a "monster".
What the hypocrites are yelling at RS about is their failure to join in the Two Minutes Hate Demonization Plan by drawing, say, a Hitler mustache on Tsarnaev. Or perhaps pulling a Fox Noise retouch, with the shadowed eyes, yellowed teeth and enlarged nose:
RS is being taken to task for the crime of insufficient hatemongrering. As the RS editor tweeted, ""I guess we should have drawn a dick on Dzhokhar's face or something?".
They've drugged the populace to such an extent that we not only expect biased journalism, but some of us actually complain when we don't get it. You whiners are never happy with reality. Always gotta tweak it. SMH...
That pic isn't as good as the copy they used on the Rolling Stone. It looks a bit more grungy because they didn't crop off that nasty T-shirt.
The New York Times is a rag. We expect anti-American propaganda from them. There circulation has fallen off so much that nobody even noticed it.
What should RS do? Run the picture and offend people and people that they offended can now voice their displeasure of the cover and then boycott if they so choose.
What should RS do? Run the picture and offend people and people that they offended can now voice their displeasure of the cover and then boycott if they so choose.
Which is what's happening, just like anything else. The interesting thing about this one is that those objectors cannot articulate why they object. Near as I can read it, their objection is based on "failure to distort".
What should RS do? Run the picture and offend people and people that they offended can now voice their displeasure of the cover and then boycott if they so choose.
Which is what's happening, just like anything else. The interesting thing about this one is that those objectors cannot articulate why they object. Near as I can read it, their objection is based on "failure to distort".
In your opinion, which is only relevant to you, no one else.
Which is what's happening, just like anything else. The interesting thing about this one is that those objectors cannot articulate why they object. Near as I can read it, their objection is based on "failure to distort".
In your opinion, which is only relevant to you, no one else.
No, in their opinion. They've been invited to articulate it and failed to do so.
Which is understandable; it's what happens when you act (or post) before thinking.
In your opinion, which is only relevant to you, no one else.
No, in their opinion. They've been invited to articulate it and failed to do so.
Which is understandable; it's what happens when you act (or post) before thinking.
My opinion, is they did articulate their reasons well. I suspect your bias may cloud your view.
I think both sides have good points.
-which articulates no reasoning whatsoever;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.
(and)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.
-- which I've already shown to be subjective bullshit and not documented anyway;The problem is the Tiger Beat photo they used.
No, in their opinion. They've been invited to articulate it and failed to do so.
Which is understandable; it's what happens when you act (or post) before thinking.
My opinion, is they did articulate their reasons well. I suspect your bias may cloud your view.
I think both sides have good points.
You must be reading a different thread, because all I got is:
-which articulates no reasoning whatsoever;
Then there was
(and)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.
-- which I've already shown to be subjective bullshit and not documented anyway;The problem is the Tiger Beat photo they used.
That and the "defending a murderer" canard, which does not compute with a front cover with the word BOMBER and "monster" on it; and the jive about "making rock stars out of murderers" which, again, like the first point, offers no basis for itself whatsoever. Running an undoctored photo, after all, is not "defending" anything except journalistic ethics.
You can hold any opinion you want, but if you can't give a basis for it, it ain't worth a lot. Now if you saw some kind of articulation feel free to quote what I missed.
My opinion, is they did articulate their reasons well. I suspect your bias may cloud your view.
I think both sides have good points.
You must be reading a different thread, because all I got is:
-which articulates no reasoning whatsoever;
Then there was
(and)
-- which I've already shown to be subjective bullshit and not documented anyway;The problem is the Tiger Beat photo they used.
That and the "defending a murderer" canard, which does not compute with a front cover with the word BOMBER and "monster" on it; and the jive about "making rock stars out of murderers" which, again, like the first point, offers no basis for itself whatsoever. Running an undoctored photo, after all, is not "defending" anything except journalistic ethics.
You can hold any opinion you want, but if you can't give a basis for it, it ain't worth a lot. Now if you saw some kind of articulation feel free to quote what I missed.
Again, your opinion.
You must be reading a different thread, because all I got is:
-which articulates no reasoning whatsoever;
Then there was
(and)
-- which I've already shown to be subjective bullshit and not documented anyway;
That and the "defending a murderer" canard, which does not compute with a front cover with the word BOMBER and "monster" on it; and the jive about "making rock stars out of murderers" which, again, like the first point, offers no basis for itself whatsoever. Running an undoctored photo, after all, is not "defending" anything except journalistic ethics.
You can hold any opinion you want, but if you can't give a basis for it, it ain't worth a lot. Now if you saw some kind of articulation feel free to quote what I missed.
Again, your opinion.
No-- again, their opinions.
I laid 'em all out. Where's the beef?
