Boston Bombing, Boston Marathon April 15th

[Caz]

Rolling Stone trashizine has stooped to an alltime low. Scumbag #2 is on the cover.
Never again will I open the pages of that trash.

 

[Touring Mars]

Oh dear. As if the media are not doing enough already to supply extremists with the publicity and fame they want. It's certainly in pretty bad taste, to say the least.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How about you read the story first before you judge it?

The first thing tha I thought of when I saw the cover was Australian singer Gotye, the kind of person who you would expect to see on the cover of Rolling Stone. He looks a little like Tsarnaev, with the scruffy hair, pasty complexion and half-done facial hair.

If you look at the cover, you'll notice the headline: THE BOMBER - How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radcial (something). The obvious intention is to present him as he was before the bombings, the kind of person who was relatable to the magazine's readership. It's obviously intended as a "before" image, setting him up as an ordinary guy who committed an inexplicable act of evil. It's extreme juxtaposition.

But, on the other hand ... BLAAAARGH! I'm spilling over with moral outrage! Let me express my obvious contempt in the least-subtle way possible! I'll make sweeping statements that I cannot possibly prove that I will ever make good on! I won't spend a moment more than I have to thinking about why they might have chosen to do this! I'm completely forgetting that Adolf Hitler was once on the cover of Time magazine! And now that I know that, I'll pretend that I didn't read it to begin with!

 

[Caz]

How bout i read as far into the article as i wanted to.
How bout not assuming i didnt.
How bout.... ahh forget it. You were personally unnafected so its useless arguing with you.
I will say i do ,honestly, respect your compassion towards people even tho alot of times i have to disagree with yur views.

 

[Blitz24]

If Rolling Stone WERE a tabloid magazine this would be different. Alas, they are not, so their decision is a bit unfortunate.

 

[Joel]

I haven't read that magazine in years. The Kanye and Obama fetish was enough to keep me from buying it

 

[Johnnypenso]

I was not surprised at all to see Rolling Stone feature Extremist Muslim Terrorist Junior on the cover of their magazine, anything to boost sales and profits for some organizations. Look at all the publicity it's generated already, the cover is front and centre on many major news networks and internet news sites already. I don't really care what they say in the article, positive, negative, truthful, made up, doesn't matter to me. Capitalizing on the terrorists picture to sell magazines is enough to turn me off their magazine by itself.

 

[arora]

Their facebook response...

Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. 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 EDITORS

And all this time I thought it was an ultra lib rag catering to the grown up flower children of the 60's. What the hell do I know

 

[Pupik]

So...magazines, newspapers, and internet news sites are no longer allowed to post photos or stories of despicable people? I'm sorry, but that whole First Amendment thing goes out the window if we're all going to act like that. For those who slept: Free press is part of that whole I can say "blah-blah-blah" and "God-god-god" all day long.

I don't get the fuss at all...I understand Caz was personally affected, and the media doesn't shy away from a juicy story or sell copies, but they all do it! Sure, a quarter of it is slanted garbage, another quarter of it is tilted by supporting sponsors, and there's all sorts of pointless news in there, but there's still something to be said about the issues of the day, which should damn well be reported, even if the antagonists and headline-makers are rotten scumbags, assholes, fleecers, thieves, murderers, rapists, destroyers...if you don't like it, tune it out. That's entirely your right. It's also your right to publish your own news.

That's how a free press and free society works together. Seriously, what the hell do people want anymore?

 

[arora]

Yeah, I hope no one is saying they don't have the right to print what they want 👍

Personally I've always considered the mag trash, even though I have a few covers cut off and preserved for my own collecting purposes

It's only profit from shock value if the people buy it lol. As a whole, we get exactly what we want and it's a bit scary sometimes tbh.

EDIT: Here ya go hahahaha

​

 

[niky]

Don't see it as any different from TIME or Newsweek featuring pictures of Osama bin Laden.

If it's an investigative report, and they feel it's important, they have a right to publish the picture.

If it's just a puff piece, nah. But not having read the piece itself, it's very risky making a spot judgment based on just the cover.

 

[Caz]

Its the cover i have more of an issue with than what i believe the article is trying to do in and of itself.
These victims have to go into public places ( grocery stores etc) and see this picture of him. All gussied up and airbrushed looking like he belongs in a disney show.
If it was a picture of him getting handcuffed or something of that nature i do not think this would have been such a public outcry against the mag.

I take slight offense to the title of the article as well. Imo it paints him as a victim not the ,ummm ... alleged, perpetrator. But in my case, that is minor compared to the photo.

The fact that RS hasnt done a story on the victims and the struggles they face yet, but choose this story irks me aswell. But it isnt a point i would nag about, just personal feelings.


Anybody see the chief editors twitter remark earlier today, it has been deleted but it.was essentially ' guess we should have drawn a ---- on his face '

 

[Carlos]

It's a magazine, they do their best to get your attention, they are doing it right...

Not saying it's the right thing to do though....

 

[Nicksfix]

So...magazines, newspapers, and internet news sites are no longer allowed to post photos or stories of despicable people? I'm sorry, but that whole First Amendment thing goes out the window if we're all going to act like that. For those who slept: Free press is part of that whole I can say "blah-blah-blah" and "God-god-god" all day long.

I don't get the fuss at all...I understand Caz was personally affected, and the media doesn't shy away from a juicy story or sell copies, but they all do it! Sure, a quarter of it is slanted garbage, another quarter of it is tilted by supporting sponsors, and there's all sorts of pointless news in there, but there's still something to be said about the issues of the day, which should damn well be reported, even if the antagonists and headline-makers are rotten scumbags, assholes, fleecers, thieves, murderers, rapists, destroyers...if you don't like it, tune it out. That's entirely your right. It's also your right to publish your own news.

That's how a free press and free society works together. Seriously, what the hell do people want anymore?

I was going to dis pretty hard on this latest bit of news. However after reading what Pupik scripted ... he nailed it right on the head. It is a free society and they can and will do what they feel. I personally don't like it, but it is what it is, so be it.

I did hear though that next month's issue will feature that of a talented young water color artist who went on to serve in WW1 and later on became the Chancellor of Germany.

J/K

Oh wait, he was already covered ..... nevermind.

 

[Northstar]

So...magazines, newspapers, and internet news sites are no longer allowed to post photos or stories of despicable people? I'm sorry, but that whole First Amendment thing goes out the window if we're all going to act like that. For those who slept: Free press is part of that whole I can say "blah-blah-blah" and "God-god-god" all day long.

Of course there is the flip side that people have just as much of a right to voice their displeasure about what the press does/says.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So...magazines, newspapers, and internet news sites are no longer allowed to post photos or stories of despicable people? I'm sorry, but that whole First Amendment thing goes out the window if we're all going to act like that. For those who slept: Free press is part of that whole I can say "blah-blah-blah" and "God-god-god" all day long.

I don't get the fuss at all...I understand Caz was personally affected, and the media doesn't shy away from a juicy story or sell copies, but they all do it! Sure, a quarter of it is slanted garbage, another quarter of it is tilted by supporting sponsors, and there's all sorts of pointless news in there, but there's still something to be said about the issues of the day, which should damn well be reported, even if the antagonists and headline-makers are rotten scumbags, assholes, fleecers, thieves, murderers, rapists, destroyers...if you don't like it, tune it out. That's entirely your right. It's also your right to publish your own news.

That's how a free press and free society works together. Seriously, what the hell do people want anymore?

I guess all the posts of people here saying we need to drop free speech because of this Rolling Stone article are deleted because I don't see them. They have a right to publish whatever they want so long as it's constitutional. I have a right to not like it and not buy it and post my opinions about it here. So I did.

 

[Touring Mars]

Its the cover i have more of an issue with than what i believe the article is trying to do in and of itself.
These victims have to go into public places ( grocery stores etc) and see this picture of him. All gussied up and airbrushed looking like he belongs in a disney show.
If it was a picture of him getting handcuffed or something of that nature i do not think this would have been such a public outcry against the mag.

I take slight offense to the title of the article as well. Imo it paints him as a victim not the ,ummm ... alleged, perpetrator. But in my case, that is minor compared to the photo.

The fact that RS hasnt done a story on the victims and the struggles they face yet, but choose this story irks me aswell. But it isnt a point i would nag about, just personal feelings.


Anybody see the chief editors twitter remark earlier today, it has been deleted but it.was essentially ' guess we should have drawn a ---- on his face '

I guess all the posts of people here saying we need to drop free speech because of this Rolling Stone article are deleted because I don't see them. They have a right to publish whatever they want so long as it's constitutional. I have a right to not like it and not buy it and post my opinions about it here. So I did.

I agree - I fully support the idea that Rolling Stone or anyone else has the right to publish or say whatever they want - it's not a First Amendment issue for me at all... it's a question of poor judgement, poor timing, poor taste and contributing to this bizarre and distasteful 'celebrity culture' status that is now being afforded to any douchebag who decides that mass murder is all they want to contribute to society. The headline irks me somewhat as well... it does make it sound like he's some kind of victim or that his behaviour was the fault of others, and that he 'fell' into radical Islam as if it were a poorly sign-posted hole in the street - granted, there were doubtless others who do share some responsibility, but that shouldn't diminish the focus on his own (alleged) actions.

 

[Liquid]

Exactly. One can have free speech, but one must also be prepared to face any consequences or backlash from that published material.

In this particular instance, people should vote with their wallets and feedback commentary.

 

[BobK]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Bears repeating.

 

[tanveerahmed2k8]

it was a false flag

 

[Liquid]

it was a false flag

How hard did you hit your head when you fell out of the David Icke forums?

 

[Joel]

it was a false flag

 

[Johnnypenso]

I agree - I fully support the idea that Rolling Stone or anyone else has the right to publish or say whatever they want - it's not a First Amendment issue for me at all... it's a question of poor judgement, poor timing, poor taste and contributing to this bizarre and distasteful 'celebrity culture' status that is now being afforded to any douchebag who decides that mass murder is all they want to contribute to society. The headline irks me somewhat as well... it does make it sound like he's some kind of victim or that his behaviour was the fault of others, and that he 'fell' into radical Islam as if it were a poorly sign-posted hole in the street - granted, there were doubtless others who do share some responsibility, but that shouldn't diminish the focus on his own (alleged) actions.

👍👍

 

[Touring Mars]

How hard did you hit your head when you fell out of the David Icke forums?

I was readying a sincere response to that post, but I think yourself and Noob have it covered

 

[arora]

What would the purpose of the 'false flag' be? An attempt to gain civilian support for Prism?

Oddly enough, it's not uncommon for credible U.S. sources to claim false flag activity in other countries, and then there is always our very own CIA playing all sorts of fun tricks around the globe

Here is one from 1999 Moscow I find interesting, a few clips from David Satter. Testifying on the house floor maybe? whatever...

...With Yeltsin and his family facing possible criminal prosecution, however, a
plan was put into motion to put in place a successor who would guarantee that Yeltsin
and his family would be safe from prosecution and the criminal division of property in
the country would not be subject to re examination.

For “Operation Successor” to succeed, however, it was necessary to have a
massive provocation. In my view, this provocation was the bombing in September, 1999
of the apartment building bombings in Moscow, Buinaksk, and Volgodonsk. In the
aftermath of these attacks, which claimed 300 lives, a new war was launched against
Chechnya. Putin, the newly appointed prime minister who was put in charge of that war,
achieved overnight popularity. Yeltsin resigned early. Putin was elected president and his first act was to guarantee Yeltsin immunity from prosecution. In the meantime, all talk of
re examining the results of privatization was forgotten.

and

The formative experience for many of the members of the present Russian elite
was spy mania, in effect, the search for phantoms. In recent years, they have stumbled
upon an unexpected Klondike based on super high prices for oil. It is therefore not
surprising that they are determined to protect their gains and do so with the help of
artificial goals in foreign policy that make it possible for them to define the outside world
as the enemy and in that way distract the population from the corruption and destruction
of democracy that is going on inside the country.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SatterHouseTestimony2007.pdf

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I found this op-ed to be pretty interesting. Especially this part:

Rolling Stone is a celebration not just of music but America itself, with all its freedom, fun, and frivolity. To find the image of an alleged terrorist looking all the world like a hipster spoken-word poet is bound to send shockwaves throughout a society still reeling from the rawness of the attack he is said to have committed.

At first glance, before you read the headline and before your brain places the familiar face in its rightful context, you assume you are looking at the face of a celebrity, but then it hits ... oh jeez, not that kind of celebrity.

And that is what this outrage is actually about. For a split second, Rolling Stone tricked us into seeing not a monster but a human being. This is a bold and direct contravention of the dichotomous "good" versus "evil" worldview to which we are conditioned and which dictates how we regard violent criminals in general and terrorists in particular.

Put simply, an evil monster simply has no right looking like a modern-day Jim Morrison.

Since former president George W. Bush drew that line in the sand, there has been no widespread attempt to understand, or even acknowledge, the motivations driving terrorists. Any attempt to explain why they do what they do is erroneously dismissed and condemned as justification for their actions.

Rather, as Ian Crouch writes in the New Yorker, America has settled into "a culture-wide self-censorship encouraged by tragedy, in which certain responses are deemed correct and anything else is dismissed as tasteless or out of bounds".

And so, violent offenders and especially terrorists are not people, they are "monsters", "animals", "beasts". They are "inhuman" and their actions "inhumane", because everyone wants so desperately to believe that real humanity is good and kind.

This part, too:

Is the killing of an innocent child ever justified? The world was rightly outraged when the Taliban shot 14-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousefazi in the head for her outspoken advocacy for girl's education.

To attack a child is considered as evil an act as possible. And yet, it is an act in which the US, even under the current administration of Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama, engages in almost every day, through its drone program.

We rightly scoff at the Taliban's attempts to "justify" shooting Malala. But when Obama advisor Robert Gibbs was pressed by journalists on the killing of 16-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, he blithely dismissed the incident, saying that to avoid being killed, "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father."

Abdulrahman, who had committed no crime, was given a death sentence by virtue of being unlucky enough to have been sired by the anti-American Islamist cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki.

This is not an attempt to equate the United States with the Taliban, only to point out that the line between what constitutes "good" and "evil" is not as clearly defined as most of us, including those who are outraged at Rolling Stone, would like to think.

And before you dismiss the author's thoughts, consider what she has to say about George Zimmerman.

 

[Keef]

And before you dismiss the author's thoughts, consider what she has to say about George Zimmerman.

Read. Considered. Dismissed.

The majority of murders in the US are blacks killing other blacks. And yet all the blacks get bent out of shape when one gets killed by somebody of any other color, even a half-hispanic they call white who doesn't even look white. Does that make any sense to you? Perhaps the arrest and incarceration rate for young black males is proportional to the rate of serious crimes committed by young black males?

That's like saying it's unfair that such a high percentage of cripples are in wheel chairs.

 

[playnthru]

And before you dismiss the author's thoughts, consider what she has to say about George Zimmerman.

Ok I've read her thoughts. I can dismiss her as being a loose lug nut.

And to anyone who refuses to see why Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. I will happily dismiss as someone who refuse to open their bloody eyes. If they were in that situation they would want to defend themselves too.(Black or white)

Why won't anyone talk about at what point Martin should stop beating Zimmerman?? Martin supporter's act like that guy had some right to attack, then beat to death Zimmerman? Because he got out of his truck and followed him. Logic.

WAKE THE HECK UP PEOPLE!

And Obama speaks! 'The Zimmerman trial was properly done'..Hey he's using logic.

 

[Zenith]

She says that nobody is held accountable for the death, but that's not true. Martin is accountable for his death, he assaulted a man.

I don't really see what this woman's article has to do with the bombing though...

 

[playnthru]

It has nothing to with Prism or the Boston Bombings. I was just responding to epic silliness I'm reading, sorry for the rant.👎