Off Topic Messages

Rolling Stone Stoned

Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:39 pm

http://business.time.com/2013/07/17/dru ... ber-cover/

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:55 pm

I saw this on the news this morning. What are they thinking?

Why did they pass up on Timothy McVeigh?

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:07 pm

Just a shallow way to grab headlines.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:19 pm

The editors chose that cover for a number of reasons:

- sales
- irony
- education

Evidently, the 19 year-old was a typical U.S. teenager just a few years ago, one much like those who read and buy the magazine. What happened to him is the crux of the article. And the First Amendment allows them to publish the cover.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:22 am

Rob wrote:I saw this on the news this morning. What are they thinking?

Why did they pass up on Timothy McVeigh?


They did, though, give Charlie Manson the thrill that'll gitcha when you get your pitcha on the cover of the Rolling Stone. This guy can "buy five copies for (his) mother!"

(Which band did that song? Probably just got a lotta YouTube views.)

Found it. Dr. Hook.

phpBB [video]



I won't cancel my subscription, but might visit the FB page to ask . . . a question.

I don't think they'll do this again; several drug store chains, including CVS, have refused to carry this issue, nationwide.

rjm

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited by rjm on Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:00 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:The editors chose that cover for a number of reasons:

- sales
- irony
- education

Evidently, the 19 year-old was a typical U.S. teenager just a few years ago, one much like those who read and buy the magazine. What happened to him is the crux of the article. And the First Amendment allows them to publish the cover.


Of course it does, but they could've also chosen to run the article and not run it as a cover story. Personally I don't care either way, I will say however that running the photo seems a conscious decision to get attention. They are still referred to in the mainstream for movie reviews, 100 greatest whatever lists and the like, but I don't think they're taken as seriously as they once were for their cultural and political content.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:57 am

intheghetto wrote:... I don't think they're taken as seriously as they once were for their cultural and political content.

C'mon... this is no time to be talking about Obama and his gang of political thugs in Washington, D.C.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:55 am

RS has the right to do what it did. There's no question about that. The problem that has been discussed is that making mass murders celebrities, seem to inspire new actions of violence. A lot of people that do these kind of terrorist murders seek publicity. What kind of message does the RS cover send to people that are considering doing similar things? There's a certain responsibility that media should consider carefully.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:15 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:The editors chose that cover for a number of reasons:

- sales
- irony
- education

Evidently, the 19 year-old was a typical U.S. teenager just a few years ago, one much like those who read and buy the magazine. What happened to him is the crux of the article. And the First Amendment allows them to publish the cover.



First Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


God bless America!

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:30 pm

Interesting article in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi (a Boston native) explaining the Tsarnaev cover:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... e-20130719

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:47 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:The editors chose that cover for a number of reasons:
- sales
- irony
- education
Evidently, the 19 year-old was a typical U.S. teenager just a few years ago, one much like those who read and buy the magazine. What happened to him is the crux of the article. And the First Amendment allows them to publish the cover.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

God bless America!

Careful there, drjohn! You're beginning to come across as a respectable Conservative! :wink:

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:18 am

jak wrote:I don't think anybody would question the right of the mag to use that cover. I think it's more of a question of taste and responsibility. That teenager committed a terrorist act and caused more physical and emotional pain than I can comprehend. In light of everything I think that cover was inappropriate.


Yes, it was totally inappropriate.

The last thing we need in America is an open discussion on what turns a typical 17 year-old teenager into a 19 year-old terrorist. Better that we simply don't talk about it, keep our doors shut, and arm ourselves like a private army.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:57 am

jak wrote:I would have hoped the magazine had decided against that cover just to deny any notoriety to that animal.

My thoughts exactly. I've always respected the stance of Beatlefan magazine - they never mention the name of the person that killed John Lennon.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:10 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:The editors chose that cover for a number of reasons:

- sales
- irony
- education

Evidently, the 19 year-old was a typical U.S. teenager just a few years ago, one much like those who read and buy the magazine. What happened to him is the crux of the article. And the First Amendment allows them to publish the cover.

I agree with you Doc, and I sure don't see the "Rock Star Treatment" the critics are claiming.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:22 pm

promiseland wrote:I agree with you Doc, and I sure don't see the "Rock Star Treatment" the critics are claiming.


Gotta be something wrong with your eyes then. That cover makes him look like some teenage heart throb who has just released a new album. There will be idiots who will fall in love with him based on this picture and his notoriety. Others may even think that by doing something similar they too can be on the front cover of Rolling Stone.

I am sure that the article within the paper is a valuable and enlightening one. However that could have just advertised it on the cover in writing and used a photo of something else which is covered in the issue. They have Jay-C and Willie Nelson advertised on the cover, use a picture of one of them.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:51 pm

It's amazing how many of you completely miss the point.

Or maybe not so amazing. ;-)

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:46 am

Okay, Doc, enlighten us mere mortals, what was the point of putting this killer on the front cover? An article on this disturbed young man, fine, in the name of investigative journalism, but there was no need to put his face in the space normally reserved for Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, or the Glee cast. Would your reaction be the same if they had stuck John Lennon's killer on the cover?

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:54 am

Lonely Summer wrote:Okay, Doc, enlighten us mere mortals, what was the point of putting this killer on the front cover?


Ignoring your condescending tone, revisit the third reply on this page. Read with care this time.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:57 am

Oh, thank you, Doc, you are so much wiser than the rest of us. I bow down to you!

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:05 am

Lonely Summer wrote:Oh, thank you, Doc, you are so much wiser than the rest of us. I bow down to you!


Obviously, this is a complex subject, perhaps a bit too much for you, but with your last two posts it's becoming clear why you chose your login name. ;-)

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:13 am

"Oh, look at the cute bomber!"

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:09 pm

Sales yes, Irony maybe though it's not very good, education? No way! The written word inside the magazine may educate if it's composed and researched properly but that picture does not.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:55 pm

bray1977 wrote:Sales yes, Irony maybe though it's not very good, education? No way! The written word inside the magazine may educate if it's composed and researched properly but that picture does not.

Exactly.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:35 pm

bray1977 wrote:Sales yes, Irony maybe though it's not very good, education? No way! The written word inside the magazine may educate if it's composed and researched properly but that picture does not.


If people are moved to buy the issue based on that cover image, it seems a fairly safe bet they will read the "written word inside the magazine."

Food for thought.

Re: Rolling Stone Stoned

Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:12 am

Turns out that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev might not have been the first choice for the cover!

http://gawker.com/the-dzokhar-tsarnaev- ... -870939728

p.s. It is interesting how many people misunderstood the point of the cover and article. Once again, lots of screaming and hollering without actually reading.