Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Rolling Stone and the Bomber *Edit* Link to article added.

Posted by on Jul. 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM
  • 92 Replies
1 mom liked this


Quote:

CVS, Walgreens, Stop & Shop Won't Sell Rolling Stone's Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Issue

 

ABBY OHLHEISER AND DASHIELL BENNETT9,661 ViewsJUL 17, 2013

Rolling Stone decided to make a profile of Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the cover story of their next issue, but their choice of cover photo has more than few people baffled and upset. (update: It's also prompted a growing number of retail chains to boycott the entire issue) The layout, which is being described as "shocking" and "offensive," resembles any number of rock star images that have graced the magazine over the years... and that's exactly the problem. Many people feel that the photo the editors chose makes Tsarnaev look like a smoldering teen heartthrob and not the accused murderer and terrorist that he is. 

A few people have pointed out that the magazine has featured plenty of villains and criminals on its covers in the past, including Charles Manson in 1970. And the magazine (like other publications) only has a few photos of the man to choose from, which is why we've actually seen this image in several other places before, including The New York Times (and this website.) But the combination of Tsarnaev's casual, glamorous appearance with the famously "cool" magazine's attitude just isn't sitting well with most people.

The online reactionwith thousands of tweets and comments on the magazine's Facebook page, wasalmost universally against the cover, some vowing to never buy Rolling Stone again.

I don't have a problem with it.  They are not glorifying him or what he did.  I don't have a problem with store choosing not to sell it either.

I think I will pick up a copy.

I have the copy that my sister bought when Charles Manson was on the cover.

You can find the article HERE.
by on Jul. 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
UpSheRises
by Platinum Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 10:42 PM
4 moms liked this
Pretty sure we all saw his face plastered all over tvs and newspapers, right?

Now all the sudden its offensice? Get a grip kiddos...
FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Jul. 18, 2013 at 10:47 PM


Quoting UpSheRises:

Pretty sure we all saw his face plastered all over tvs and newspapers, right?

Now all the sudden its offensice? Get a grip kiddos...

Exactly.

It seems people need to find things to be offended about.

Kind of ridiculous.

AlekD
by Gold Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 10:55 PM
3 moms liked this

Did they do the same when RS had OJ Simpson or Charles Manson on the cover?

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Jul. 18, 2013 at 10:56 PM


Quoting AlekD:

Did they do the same when RS had OJ Simpson or Charles Manson on the cover?

Good question.

I haven't a clue.  I honestly don't remember.  

quickbooksworm
by Silver Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 11:00 PM
7 moms liked this
People are missing the point. They aren't glorifying him. They are drawing attention to how normal he was. He could be anyone any of us know. He isn't a stereotype of a terrorist or mass murderer.

Not gonna lie, he makes a good cover in part because he's kinda hot. And I think that may be part of the issue. Charles Manson just LOOKS like a psycho, this guy is normal.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
jllcali
by Jane on Jul. 18, 2013 at 11:08 PM
1 mom liked this
I really don't see it as them glamorizing or sympathizing or glorifying him at all. RS is known (to anyone who has actually read an article or two from them not related to a musician) to write thorough and thought provoking articles. Sometimes they are hard hitting. I think they intended the cover to illustrate that someone can look and seem normal, but are capable of atrocities.

That being said, I understand that not everyone is able to look at this without emotions clouding their view. I also understand that the victims and their families may feel offended by the cover. For this reason I feel it is in very poor taste and if people want to refuse to buy or sell the issue, I am not bothered by it.

If I saw an issue laying around, I'd probably read it.
jessilin0113
by Platinum Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 11:15 PM
2 moms liked this

I honestly don't get the upset.  From what I've heard, it's actually an excellent, thought-provoking article.  And that picture was splashed everywhere, what else were they going to use?

jllcali
by Jane on Jul. 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM
1 mom liked this
The fact that he's good looking further illustrates the point I believe they were going for. I also think that is part of the emotional response to the cover. I so cannot explain the science behind it, but most people react more favorably to attractive people than homely people and I think some people are upset by their own subconscious reaction to his face a split second before they realize who he is.

Quoting quickbooksworm:

People are missing the point. They aren't glorifying him. They are drawing attention to how normal he was. He could be anyone any of us know. He isn't a stereotype of a terrorist or mass murderer.



Not gonna lie, he makes a good cover in part because he's kinda hot. And I think that may be part of the issue. Charles Manson just LOOKS like a psycho, this guy is normal.
jllcali
by Jane on Jul. 18, 2013 at 11:38 PM
And, hello, has no one ever heard the expression "you can't judge a book by it's cover"
FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Jul. 18, 2013 at 11:38 PM
4 moms liked this


Quoting jllcali:

The fact that he's good looking further illustrates the point I believe they were going for. I also think that is part of the emotional response to the cover. I so cannot explain the science behind it, but most people react more favorably to attractive people than homely people and I think some people are upset by their own subconscious reaction to his face a split second before they realize who he is.

Quoting quickbooksworm:

People are missing the point. They aren't glorifying him. They are drawing attention to how normal he was. He could be anyone any of us know. He isn't a stereotype of a terrorist or mass murderer.



Not gonna lie, he makes a good cover in part because he's kinda hot. And I think that may be part of the issue. Charles Manson just LOOKS like a psycho, this guy is normal.

Spot on.

Many people, in that split second of seeing this face, think...'wow, what a nice looking guy'.....then reality sets in and they realize who it is.

They can't admit to their first reaction so they find themselves getting even more upset over his actions.  Acting out towards his actions even more, as in the uproar over the cover.  

He is a nice looking kid.  Nice looking people do horrific things all the time.  We need to see his face, learn his story.  That is not glorifying what he did or who he was, is or will be.  It is reality.  Some people would rather bury their heads in the sand and not take a peek out.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)