Hey, there! Log in / Register
Our very own Teen Beat cover boy
By adamg on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 11:11pm
Oh, wait, Teen Beat went out of business a few years ago, so it's up to Rolling Stone to give us heartthrob Dzhokhar "Jahar" Tsarnaev in all his oh-so-cute tousled loveliness on the cover, rather than simply reusing that oh-so-overused and icky post-boat photo.
The article, blurbized here, might actually be as riveting an account of the making of a murdering terrorist as Rolling Stone claims it is, but did they really need to go with a visage that's already been fetishized by the free-Jahar crowd?
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Janet Reitman is an excellent journalist
Her recent book on Scientology (expanded from another Rolling Stone article) is must reading for anyone interested in that sinister organization. I look forward to seeing what she has to say about Tsarnaev.
Curious...
Curious what Ms. Reitman thinks about the cover. I strongly suspect RS didn't ask her opinion before selecting this photo.
A song for the occasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q
thank you, Dr. Hook
I've been humming that all night
since facebook started humming
I guess I don't have the
I guess I don't have the visceral reaction to this kind of stuff. It's one of the few non-crappy quality pictures of Tsarnaev out there. Many of the others are either from years ago when he was a little kid or are grainy snap shots. This one is actually of reasonable quality and looks fairly artsy, the kind of thing Rolling Stone usually has on the cover. And it would seem to fit with what looks like the thesis of the piece: that this was a "popular" "promising" kid gone bad. I don't think that you can argue that this is glamorizing or empathizing him much since they headline it as "The Bomber" and describe him on the cover as "a monster".
So you're claiming that
So you're claiming that Rolling Stone is glorifying him with a photo that's stamped with the words "The Bomber" and "monster" before he's even tried in a court. How exactly is that a pitch to a "free-Jahar crowd"? And what journalistic high road are you espousing when basically you're just asking for the cover to be fully biased instead of only half so? The story is about how his life changed, not how he was found in a boat. The photo thus makes sense. Check yourself instead of the magazine and tone down the faux moral outrage everyone likes indulging in with crime stories.
Isn't this the same (fairly
Isn't this the same (fairly established) publication that had Charles Manson on their cover way back in the day?
What year is this?
Yes, Rolling Stone had Manson on the cover FORTY THREE YEARS AGO. I can't wait for the Herald to play up that aspect. You know, that "hippie, pinko" Rolling Stone. Like the people who referred to the occupiers as "hippies", as if they just walked out of a time machine intact from 1968. And in the past week we've had to contend with headlines about the fifty year old Boston Strangler crimes. Not to mention geriatric Whitey Bulger, whose heyday was decades ago, being spoken of as if he is somehow still relevant. Does linear time exist at all in this city?
They were nicer to Manson
If you read the titles, They call Tsarnev a monster but talk about the "incredible story" of Charles Manson.
Bad photo choice
I think Rolling Stone made a poor choice on the cover photo. The kid has been branded a villain, so a photo that looks like the product of a photo shoot arraigned by a publicist or record label has turned off lots of people. Was the photo the price required for his relatives to do interviews? If so, it was too high. Perhaps RS used it because nobody else had that image. Instead, show his victims and consequences of his actions on the cover as lead in to the story on how it happened. Now many people won't even want to get past the cover to read the article.
Gotta say it
Victims and consequences of the acts he allegedly committed.
I hold no brief for this jamoke. But that's primarily because, like virtually every other reader here and elsewhere, I know only what police and prosecutors have shown and told us about him. I'm not hewing to conspiracy theories - please, God, could we just set minimum competency to use the Internet? - but I am saying the kid is presumed innocent under law, and not a criminal until he's been branded one by a jury. (Could a jury determine the boy did kill four people and maim many others but is not guilty of a crime? I suppose, but I wouldn't bet a roll of slugs on it.)
Cover photo is provocative, likely deliberately so. Others have noted elsewhere that Rolling Stone has had Manson on its cover, Time posted up Hitler as Man o' the Year in the day, etc. OK. Magazines are trying to sell units, and this may have been bad judgment from a marketing perspective. But I'll read the story. I'm not 'disgusted' that a murder suspect is the subject of a cover story.
And for my money, in the photo he looks like the kind of cocky little fuck I'd want to smack - probably for wearing a baseball hat, backwards, with a flat brim, in a restaurant - irrespective of any criminal charges. But others' mileage ("Teen Beat") varies, I guess.
This guy gets it. It's not
This guy gets it. It's not like the photo is manipulated, but just for fun lets all play publisher, because lord knows any of our local newspapers haven't posted a provocative or two.
Imagination Land
So a shitty, Instagram selfie is now a rockstar publicist professional pinup? Yikes.
Stretching guys. Calm down, take a breath, and realize it’s all in your heads.
The photo tells the story
that they are trying to tell. As previous poster said, he was this promising popular kid gone bad. Now he's a monster. That's the point!
This is just fucking
This is just fucking disgraceful.
How so?
How so?
Man, I always thought Boston
Man, I always thought Boston was tougher than this. I mean really we are upset over a photo that has been run by numerous publications? C'mon people, whatever happened to Boston Strong.
Because people express their
Because people express their disgust at a magazine glamorizing a terrorist we're not strong? Are you that simple-minded?
Are you so simple minded that
Are you so simple minded that you are outraged over a magazine doing its job....Just so you know the terrorists have officially won.
Are you so simple minded that
Are you so simple minded that you are outraged over a magazine doing its job....Just so you know the terrorists have officially won.
Sean Collier
Because seeing that POS' face reminds me of the night I found out a person I loved was killed senselessly, taken away without notice and notwithstanding Sean's death, I love Boston and I am heartbroken by the loss our city suffered that week.
Have some compassion. Some of us suffered irreplaceable loss that week. We are still grieving, and wish to hell those people were still with us.
RIP, Sean.
What about the magazines that
What about the magazines that feature Osama Bin Laden? A lot of my friends died fighting in wars because of that man.
You must be new around here
Boston isn't tough cause we got a thick skin, (we're all a little sensitive around here) but because we're not afraid to say something when we've been slighted.
How?
How, exactly, have you or Boston been slighted?
This picture ran above the fold in the NYT two months ago.
Proxy outrage may give you the nut puffs, but it's as phony as anger over a TV show.
http://wonkette.com/522962/en
http://wonkette.com/522962/entire-city-of-boston-d...
A pathetic desperate attempt
A pathetic desperate attempt to be edgy. This is a slap in the face to Boston, the victims and their families.
I have to ask...
How many times did the New York Post, the Boston Globe and The Boston Herald feature pictures of this kid on their covers?
I'm a little confused about the outrage about Rolling Stone, when newspapers used his image for weeks to sell papers.
Newspapers
I can only assume that everyone expressing outrage here also let the editors of each of the following newspapers have a piece of their mind back in April.
http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/default_ar...
Different target audience
Rolling Stones is an entertainment magazine. It may have reasonable current-topic reporting, but it's primary purpose in the publishing world is entertainment reporting. In our cultural short-hand it it understood that the person featured on the cover is considered glamorous and admired in his/her profession and who is held in regard by the target audience of the magazine. Rolling Stones is putting it's "isn't this guy cool?" imprimatur on any image it puts on it's cover.
Now, I suspect that the editorial decision to put this image on the cover was indeed an attempt at courting scandal. And scandal is generally fine, perhaps even expected from an entertainment magazine, but not all scandals are created equal. The lack of consideration for the victims of this bombing and the raw nerves still surrounding the incident is breathtaking in it's scope. Surely with a little more thought they could have come up with an appropriate and though provoking image which didn't come off so much as idol-worship...
Such as?
Such as?
Okay one more
Adamg posted one alternative idea cover below. That's looks like a pretty good idea without making him look like he the lead of the new Boy Band called The Bombers.
Come on....
That's the dumbest thing I've read in this thread....that they are trying to make him cool? Get a grip on reality. The story is about him becoming a terrorist. There's nothing cool about it. All this fake outrage is a f'ing joke.
Taking a stab in the dark here
That by end of day, we'll have yet another topic that'll have over 100 posts under it here on Uhub.
And I agree, this picture and cover description makes him look less like terrorist, and someone who just got caught up in something bad, and it wasn't his fault. When it's clear to everyone that this wasn't the case at all (and far from it)
(Regardless of what people think, he didn't have to go along with his brother. He could have walked away. But he didn't)
makes him look less like terrorist
I guessing you’re sort of referencing that you think this guy might get sympathy, which makes him “not look like a terrorist”. Otherwise, what the heck does a terrorist look like?
Going to need to read the article myself, but I’m not sure what the overaction on this is all about. Maybe it has to do with him getting on the coverer and some false sense that in doing so they’re promoting him?
I mean…
Maybe the correct wording is
Maybe the correct wording is "Looks more relaxed and casual" or "less threatening'. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
All good
But the point stands. I think the Herald photo above looks even less so, and they didn't even call him a monster there.
No offense, do you have Aspergers or something?
You don't understand why people, especially his victims, would be upset? Seriously?
Ummmmm
hello. I do.
Less like a terrorist ...
And more like my 18 year old son and his 17-18 year old friends.
That is most unsettling to me, but also a bit of a warning as my moody, idealistic, justice and fairness-minded artsy kid with big dark eyes and dark, loosely curly hair and a scruffy beardlet is starting the college visit process, not knowing what he wants to do in a year or where he wants to go.
I believe that is exactly the point RS is intending to get across here - in that photo he is the everykid: a boyman caught in the muddle that most adolescents his age are as they approach the end of high school. Looking as much stunned as stoned. Now he is accused of some very horrifying things.
How in the hell does that happen?
Bullshit...
Rolling Stone is the same company that brings you US weekly. They are not in any way, shape or form trying to show anyone that Dzhokar is the "everykid". They want to sell magazines and nothing sells magazines like controversy.
You think Playboy publishes nude pictures of Lindsay Lohan because she's a talented, yet misunderstood actress?
And as far as your question about how it happens, I get the impression that your questions might be answered in Reitman's piece.
Who shoved a hive up your rumpus?
First of all, how many kids this age do you have regular contact with?
Second, well, duh, they want to sell magazines. HOWEVER This particular picture is most certainly an "everykid" picture of this guy. I see a lot of "selfies" and photos of kids this age parade past my facebook and when I check in on my kids' tumbler feeds. This could be any of those kids - or my older one.
I don't see glamour here - he looks like he was stoned and/or half asleep when someone poked him with a pool cue and he's sort of mumbling "whut????". How is that glamorous?
You may not see that in this picture - but you probably aren't even the target audience. Most people I know with kids this age - some even knew the kid or their kids hung out with him - do see this picture in this way.
I was born with a hive up my rumpus, you just figuring that out?
Secondly, I don't care to spend that much time around kids his age because rarely do I find one that is enlightened enough to tell me who the fucking Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is. Yours may be the exception and good on ya if they are.
I'll yield to your point that Tsarnaev does seem to be sporting the same blank look that we see on so many Facebook pages nowadays. Of course the same blank look is also on the face on the most popular kid in my high school on his FB page who now weighs about 300 lbs and drives a tow truck.
I don't recall using the word glamour.
The median age of the Rolling Stone reader is 35.
Chief Justice
Just FYI, he's the Chief Justice of the United States, not the Supreme Court.
Cover Nonwithstanding
Rollingstone has been doing some of the best investigative journalism in the Business for a while now (sad, right?). Matt Taibbi has been picking apart the terribly corrupt and complicated world of economics and finance the past few years, and what he’s found should worry anyone that was the least bit unsettled about the near collapse in 2007. Reitman is similarly grade A caliber.
I’ll never put it past the editor to screw up the headline or cover, since it’s been done a thousand times. But Rollingstone itself has some well-deserved reporting cred, and part of me wonders if the media “controversy” itself is part that other outlets simply can’t or won’t do the heavy lifting that RS seems to be going back towards. They much more ok with reporting on “the controversy” rather than the findings, for 30 seconds, before jumping to the next cute youtube some intern pulled up…
If someone could find a pic of him riding a bike...
and possibly drinking coffee out of a Mason jar, then definitely.
Personally I'm not sure I get the outrage. They didn't manipulate the photo in any way or do anything to "glamorize" it. He was a good-looking kid and obviously an appealing personality in many ways--that's part of the mystery and the horror of the whole thing, that this "nice kid" committed this horrifying act. It would be great if he had horns and a tail, but he doesn't.
All that means that some
All that means that some people don't need any photo manipulation to look good.
The simple fact is Rolling Stone cover is usually honoring rock stars. Generally, if you're on the cover, you're some cool guy and thus elevated.
Thus putting this guy on the cover with the same pose as many boy bands do on magazines (regardless looking stoned or whatever, plenty of sucks stars still make the pose - I guess it looks cool), is conveying that status. Granted, this is a dissonance contrast, but many don't even want that much attach to him.
I can definitely understand that. I don't see what's so hard to see from that perspective.
It's selective outrage...
Howie Carr goes into business with a guy who killed 19 Bostonians and it's no big deal and forgotten. Dzhokar allegedly kills 4 people, injures many others and a great journalist does a supposedly excellent piece on him and people are getting their panties in a bunch.
If you're offended the best way to send a message is to not buy it. There are plenty of people out there who do want to read Reitman's piece, despite Rolling Stone's obvious ploy to bring in readers to a dying magazine through their "provocative" cover.
Serious question
Serious question: what difference does it make what photo they picked to run on the cover? It doesn't sound like the article is any sort of apologia for what he did, but is just a breakdown of how a normal guy turned into a murdering sociopath. The post-boat picture is grainy and doesn't clearly show his face. This one does. Why are people calling it 'disgraceful'?
Because people love to be
Because people love to be offended, and this is the flavor of the week and this will be forgotten about in 3 days. It's certainly not unprecedented as has been mentioned earlier in these comments.
If you'd get your head out of
If you'd get your head out of the sand for about 30 seconds you would have heard on the news that the Marathon bombing survivors ARE OFFENDED and one family has issued a statement to the magazine expressing their disgust. Oh, but they, in your ignorant small-minded opinion, are Boston Weak and love being offended. You sir, anon (not verified) - 7/17/13 - 9:08 am, are an ass.
I don't care
Who's offended. They don't have a good reason.
The History channel is
The History channel is constantly running programs on Hitler, Charles Manson graced the cover of many magazines (including, but not limited to life and rolling stone), Osama bin laden (time), Timothy McVeigh (time multiple times), not to mention our own national leaders, but I don't hear any uproar about those.
I am not the small minded one here, that would be you sir. I realize that this was not an unprovoked act, as our country carries out far great atrocities around the world, specifically the middle east every single day. We (the armed forces that represent us) have killed far more innocent men women and children across the middle east, directly and using unmanned drones, in the past ten years than 9/11 and the marathon bombings combined.
Watch the movie the Patriot some time. To us Benjamin Martin was a hero, but by today's definition, through the eyes of the British he would have been a terrorist, it's all a matter of perspective. One huge difference between now and then though, is that travel has become far more efficient, so it is easier to take the battle back to the aggressors home turf.
As tragic as 9/11 and Marathon Monday were, unfortunately on a large scale as Americans, we are in no way innocent victims. Change the channel from Fox News once in a while and look outside your safe little bubble before you go calling others small minded.
One more repetitive comment
Okay, I know I'm just repeating. Just one more comment as I said below. I'm just seeing this argument repeated over and over this post.
The difference of being on the face of History Channel (sidenote: they don't really do history comment anymore, the reality shows today makes the old days of constant WW2 history look good - at least it was history) or Times is context. What is so hard to recognize that?
Being the face of Times is usually an honor of great impact - regardless of being negative or positive. Being on the face of History Channel is also conveying great impact. Being on the face of Rolling Stone usually conveys of being a level of rock star.
To give qualifiers, no, not every cover of Rolling Stone conveys that. The difference is those pictures usually doesn't look with same pose as many boy bands or Justin Beiber or some other star would give. And, even if you think it he only looks normal or sleepy or stoned - as argued here - that's how many poses for Rolling Stone covers.
I can concede the points here does have some merit. Banning sales is stores does have dis-likable implications. That we are giving quite a lot of reaction for a cover no matter how it looks, it can be argued it's not worth our energy to get so worked up.
Yet, I can see the cover and easily see why it people feel offended. The cover really does looks like he fits not merely a regular kid, but fitting to any teenage singer or boy band with all the fangirls (and he already got some of that) and glory that comes that position. Even if the purpose is display contrast or show how normal he looks to make the article more poignant. I see the reasoning why, but covers of a book matter as well what's inside.
Not to
Godwin the thread, but by the reasoning I'm hearing History channel now is the most hated media outlet ever. Not only do they show pictures of Hitler, they even show movies of the jerk from time to time.
Yeah, not really getting it. What the actual article say? The headline even calls him a flat out monster, so it seems the text isn’t going to be too sympathetic to him or his family. As it shouldn’t.
I'll read the article, after
I'll read the article, after I rip the fucking cover off and use it as toilet paper.
ok tough guy
As others have stated, it's a photo. Rolling Stone didn't go to the victims' homes and put posters outside their front door. Whitey's picture was in a ton of magazines, probably on the cover of more than one book, did you rip those off and wipe your ass with them?
Tough guy?
Really? Did you take my comment THAT seriously? Apparently you're incapable of understanding tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to show my disgust for that animal.
No, I do not rip pages out of magazines with Whitey Bulger's face and wipe my ass with them. Nor will I literally do the same with this Rolling Stone cover.
If you're still confused, here you go: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tongue-i...
Ah yes
The I-said-something-violent-or-abusive-and-now-its-only-a-joke-when-called-out-on-it retort.
Yes. Indeed.
Only a simpleton would have
Only a simpleton would have taken my comment seriously. As if I was actually going to walk to the nearest store to buy a magazine to rip the cover off and wipe my ass. Seriously? Where the hell is the sense of humor or ability to read sarcasm with some people?
And considering the context, what exactly is violent or abusive about what I said? Sure, maybe it was a bit off-color or low brow. But violent? I fail to see your perspective. I feel as though some people can be WAY oversensitive, mostly just for the sake of being argumentative.
Only a simpleton would say
Only a simpleton would say something as dumb as you did.
Good job! Using the same word
Good job! Using the same word I did in my previous post is a great way to attempt to make yourself look clever!
Free advice
If you don't want people to call you dumb, don't post dumb shit like
You're welcome.
Setting aside all previous
Setting aside all previous images we have in our head of this monster, I think he actually looks like a rockstar on that cover. Inappropriate yes, but they did a good job touching up his photo.
Blowhard Rage
Talk radio (predictably) was all over this this morning, on just about every station. Blowhards got to pay the bills too, and the sure fire way is to rile up a bunch of idiots who go through life picking “teams” to root for. Bad guy = other team, so attack!
Apparently photos and names are now on the list of things that make lady liberty cry . This is quite frankly embarrassing.
I could see an issue if the article was sympathetic to the DB, but I’m highly doubting that, especially considering the journalist.
Yup
It pays to be outraged these days. Regardless of what happens, people need to be OUTRAGED! Does the Zimmerman trial deserve a discussion? Of course. Do people need to talk about how it's the end of American society as we know it? Probably not. Any and all issues where there may be the slightest bit of debate these days basically turns into who can yell the loudest. Who can post the most times on Twitter/Facebook. Frankly, it's disgusting.
Don't feed the trolls
RS did this to generate hype and publicity. And it's working. When was the last time anyone talked about Rolling Stone magazine?
As with all such trolling, the best response is to ignore it.
I know, right?
It's almost like they PICKED this picture ON PURPOSE to GENERATE PUBLICITY!!! OH!! MY!! GOD!!!
Tea pot tempest
Quick. Name the magazine that depicted Barack Obama as a muslim.
Yeah...that's what I thought.
Hi there
Just so you can't say that you weren't warned, but I'm messy! I don't appear to you in neat story lines so that you can pretend that a sweet kid who became a monster was never a sweet kid!
Sorry, but denial does not make you safer - it just makes you feel safer.
Then I come bite you in the ass. Because you didn't pay attention - and attention is a nasty ass loan shark that you don't want coming to collect.
Repulsive; I wonder what the family of Martin Richards
or his other victims think? What does Jeff Bauman think when he wakes up and immediately realizes this 'hottie' set off the bomb that blew his legs off?
Some media did the same thing with Timothy McVeigh, who was also boyish looking and kinda 'hot'.
We all know if this 'promising and popular kid' were 250lbs, had bad acne, stuttered, and attended special needs school, he would not be the coverboy for RS. He's on the cover because he's 'hot' looking. If he was an unattractive black, Asian, Hispanic, or white 'kid'?
And I'm tired of hearing how popular and 'promising' Tsarnaev was; and apparently still is to a lot of people, who have what we call where I come from 'the hots' for him.
Tsarnaev is a young man who was very lucky to have been given refugee status and American citizenship. He and his family were given much help and assistance by the government [taxpayers] and private groups. He is additionally reasonably intelligent and physically attractive [which he is obviously well aware of and used to his advantage]. He's the perfect 'coverboy' for some people because he represents 'diversity', attended Ringe and Latin, was a product of Cambridge.
You could ask them
... assuming that you know them.
Better way to find out than to speak for them.
I'm also hoping that you are no older than about 22, if you think he looks like "a hottie".
Affected families are now
Affected families are now speaking out about this and they don't seem pleased. But Anon raises a good point, if this kid was 280lbs and pimply, would he be on the cover? I doubt it. I could care less what RS does, haven't bought their magazine in decades but this is giving their circulation numbers a well needed boost and worse, it gives this guys "fan club" (you know, those girls hanging around the courthouse?) some validation. I subscribed to RS for quite some time, but that was a long time ago.
Funny
No, I do not find him 'hot'. MANY do, however. And you know what I'm talking about, you're just being disingenuous.
Sex sells and yes RS is using a 'sexy' teenage terrorist to sell their mag. Is that distasteful? Yes.
I realize my mentioning the sex angle makes some people uncomfortable, but too bad. You can believe the prosecution is well aware how 'sexy' and attractive this guy is. Like it or not, it's a part of the story.
22?
19...he's an adult. I'm not interested, but he's hardly a child.
WTF
Did I just read?
Thats some imagination. Seek help. Way to much projection going on there.
I'm guessing....
They've already seen a picture of him.
I want to read the article
so I can try and understand why this guy and his brother did what they did. I understand the cover will attract a lot of publicity and I supposed that's what Rolling Stone wants, but more importantly, maybe there's something to be learned from the words inside if we can get over the picture on the outside.
I don't see the Teen Beat treatment here
It's not like they sent in Annie Leibovitz with a wardrobe, makeup, hair, and lighting crew to make Tsarnaev look as rock-star as possible. That's just what he looked like: I think it's a fairly recent selfie, no artificial glamorization at all.
The story probes into his life, especially the time before he went down the insane path he did. Illustrating that with a photo of him getting pulled out of the boat doesn't make sense. As someone else here pointed out, that headline makes it clear that Rolling Stone isn't trying to apologize or create sympathy for him. I'm hopeful the story will be good enough to shed some light on how he became a monster. The recent work of reporters like Matt Taibbi suggest that Rolling Stone is still capable of running excellent long-form journalism.
I suspect the exact point of the photo is how normal and innocent he looked only a few months ago. We like our terrorists better when they have filthy clothes, ragged beards, and strange headgear. The idea that *that* kid could become a mass murderer is what is making people so uncomfortable.
I really don't get why
I really don't get why UHubbers not seeing the a Teen Beat treatment here. Yes, there was no wardrobe, makeup, hair, or lighting crew. There was probably no photo touch up.
All that means that it was the easiest Teen Beat treatment of all time. All they had to do was put Rolling Stone on top to give the same look as other posing rock stars. I can see the headline means the intention is to create super contrast. The thing that perplex me is the general UHub sentiment is not seeing that the cover does make him look like a dreamy new Justin Beiber.
well...
1. We've seen the picture (or ones like it) since mid April. Link to newseum above shows the countless papers that showed his curly locks vs. boat pic
2. I don't find him attractive regardless
3. The words in boldface type call him a monster, so I think RS' feelings about him are quite clear.
4. Whitey, bin Laden, Hitler, Manson - they've all been on the cover of different magazines. They were/are important at the time.
5. If the goal was to make him look like Bieber, that's another crime.
Okay I think am getting the confusion...
I'm not sure if I can successfully explain. Here's my try (for Saul too, but he might read this unless I comment directly to him): I think the gulf is the meaning of the cover of the Rolling Stones versus being on the cover of other media.
Being on the cover of Times or NYT conveys high notability.
Being on the cover of Rolling Stone (usually) conveys being a big, prestigious musician and all its coolness.
Thus making on the face of Times or NYT only mean "that person did something big - good or bad" regardless of the picture looking like a fool or epic.
Making on the face of Rolling Stone (tends) to mean that person is some cool musician and thus glamor (which tends to pose like that). If you feel that headline under negates that and get pass that, well the best I say imagine it just says "The Bombers". Now it looks like he's the lead singer of the boy band called The Bombers.
And for attractiveness, it may not be to you, but that's beside the point. The important thing he is framed in the same way as they would frame as attractive (and the reason you don't is probably the same reason you also view looking like Bieber a crime).
Usually, not always
"Being on the cover of Rolling Stone (usually) conveys being a big, prestigious musician and all its coolness."
Except for the times when, as in this issue, the big story in the magazine is a feature on some figure in a notorious crime: Manson, OJ, Bundy, etc. It's not just a music magazine, never has been. In fact, its non-music reporting (see Matt Taibbi) is the only thing that has made it worth reading in recent years.
Here's an idea: do you want a magazine that, when it reports on criminals, only focuses on the victims of the crime, or the heroic first responders, or police who tracked them down, instead of writing a deeply-reported profile seeking insight into the criminal's makeup and motivations by interviewing the criminal's friends and associates? Publish one yourself, and stop screaming about what article and photographs you think other publishers should and shouldn't run.
Meanwhile, if you haven't wrung your hands at every other one of the hundreds of newspapers that have run big, attractive front-page photos of Lil' Tsarnaev (like the Herald), spare me the selective outrage.
Amen
All this talk (thanks Menino) that they should have had photos of first responders, victims, etc on the cover is ridiculous. The story isn't about the first responders, or the victims, it's about the bomber. If the story was about Jeff Baumann, or a first responder, and they put that photo on the cover, I could see complaining that they were doing it to stir up a response....but THE STORY IS ABOUT HIM.
Not only that
But the chilling truth is the guys was a recent high school pothead going to college and participating in Americana. It's disturbing , creepy, and dissonant. And if late high school / new to college kids are still RS' target audience, the story is very relevant to them.
This kid could be the friendly kid down the hall. I don't see why they wouldn't cover it, and the path that led to his horrible acts. It's news worthy.
Amen
All this talk (thanks Menino) that they should have had photos of first responders, victims, etc on the cover is ridiculous. The story isn't about the first responders, or the victims, it's about the bomber. If the story was about Jeff Baumann, or a first responder, and they put that photo on the cover, I could see complaining that they were doing it to stir up a response....but THE STORY IS ABOUT HIM.
Amen
All this talk (thanks Menino) that they should have had photos of first responders, victims, etc on the cover is ridiculous. The story isn't about the first responders, or the victims, it's about the bomber. If the story was about Jeff Baumann, or a first responder, and they put that photo on the cover, I could see complaining that they were doing it to stir up a response....but THE STORY IS ABOUT HIM.
Ive seen this guys picture in
Ive seen this guys picture in every local paper and on every TV station for months. Why the outrage and hysterics over this magazine cover?
Maybe it isn't "terrorist" looking enough and that scares people, but that is what he looks like.
As far as the article goes, from what I've seen on line,it is a story about how he went from being a regular school kid to a monster (their words) that killed innocent people. It does not justify or glorify his actions.
An alternate approach
By Joe Harrington:
Questionable cover?
I'll give you a questionable cover! ;-)
http://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-businessw...
PS-- If this "perception" lasts more than four hours, call an economist
Oh Wow
And here I was thinking there'd be a banker in handcuffs on the cover. (Real ones, not the pink fuzzy kind)
So, at the end of the day,
how much free publicity has Rolling Stone obtained as a result of this? And how many more copies of the magazine will be sold as a result?
Everytime we protest a feature like this, especially before it has even hit the newsstands, we are simply falling for the "how do we boost sales" ploy of the marketing types. Guess it's another example of how Corporate America is truly intruding into every aspect of our thoughts and lives.
Funny how the protests about the news media using outdated photos of Trevon Martin never made it to this "oh the humanity" level.
Richard Donohue's statement
Via:
Bravo
About the most sane thing said in this whole brouhaha.
"The magazine cover offends me, I won't buy it, I respect the editors' rights to publish what they please, let's move on."
Speaking of Donahue...
What I find funny is that while he is a hero in my eyes and many others, every time I see him on TV or hear mention of him, I never hear anything about him catching that bullet from another cop in that melee.
Has this been proven?
Much respect for him
but with that said...
I'm still trying to figure this one out. Is it only because it's the Rollingstone, and not Newsweek or the Atlantic?
I'm realy getting a feeling that people don't know that Rollingstone isn't the music only digest it once was. Thats the way this make sense to me beyond a visceral, primal, illogical reaction I’d thought we’d be better than.
You want to be outraged, let’s go pay the visit to the DB at North Station that was selling Boston Strong apparel the day after the marathon and for a full two weeks before he put up a half assed sign saying that “some proceeds will go to the one fund”.. yeah right kid, go F yourself and you’re unlicensed merch stand. I doubt ANY of that money made it to anything but his pockets. He was even keeping the stand open on non-game days (unusual) to cash in from the out of towners.
Rolling Stone has *always* covered news and politics
did you mean "never was" ? From its earliest days, Rolling Stone has covered politics. Are you familiar with the name Hunter S. Thompson?
"unshaken"
Yet we collectively flipped our shit and we are having companiees like CVS and Tedeschi's deciding for us what we can or cannot handle purchasing for ourselves. I'm sure many of these stores are still selling Hustler's "Barely Legal", but I can't choose on my own to buy or boycott Rolling Stone.
This is not a comment about Officer Donohue. I'm just saying the community did not say "intrepid and unshaken" as Officer Donohue would have hoped.
Actually, I'm pretty sure
Actually, I'm pretty sure that CVS and Walgreen's don't sell "Barely Legal". Not that I've, er, checked in quite some time, er, you understand. Tedeschi, I don't know. They used to sell that sort of thing at Store 24s in the 80s and 90s but the drugstores have always steered clear of porn.
Now I know
Well, now I know who to ask next time I need to track down a copy of Barely Legal.
I live to serve.
I live to serve.
BS Community...
Oh, so now there is a "Boston Strong Community?" Is that adjacent to the "Live Strong Community?" Down the street from the "Yankees Suck" community? I need help navigating trite slogan city!
I am confident that our
Too bad we couldn't quite manage this part, huh?
He's dreamy!
He's dreamy!
Rate that Buzz
Handy chart: http://i.imgur.com/AKrdc.png
FULL TEXT of Rolling Stone article now online
Here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-wo...
NYT
I assume then that the Times was glorifying a murderer two months ago when they ran the exact same photo above the fold?
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/05/05/nytfrontp...
And he looks like a teenage
And he looks like a teenage heartrob on that cover as he does on the Rolling Stone cover. The difference is usually being on the Rolling Stone cover is conveying an honor - and it is quite common to look just like that.
How often does the NYT
How often does the NYT feature a photo of just one person so prominently on its front page?
Not too often.
So I still fail to see why there was no outrage directed at the NYT back in May.
Will you just ask him out already
You seem to be the ONLY one who is complaining about how dreamy he looks, just ask him out!
You're reading way too much into being on the cover of Rolling Stone. As others have pointed out, when they run a big investigative story, that gets the cover.
Is this like
homosexual self loathing? Is it just that people are freaking out because they're attracted to this kid and don't know how to handle the disconnect?
I don't even get the good looking thing. Looks like any other stoned scrub hanging out down at Berkley if you ask me.
Reponse
I been out of time for the past 5 days. So I never got a chance to respond.
From the UHub tittle itself, it indicates I'm not the only one who recognize the connection (and there's a few other commentators noticing too - I'm just the most active). Outside of the Uhub-sphere, it is a common connection. It is why it generated so much discussion. For me, I'm perplexed why UHub is opposite to the point of feeling perplexed to the other way around.
reaction from Norden brothers of Stoneham
source: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/07/17/boston-marat...
Right. Because if the
Right. Because if the magazine had instead used a photo of the shoes and flowers left at the memorial, the victims' wounds would heal so much more quickly.
Imagine if everyone who is so outraged just shut up and chose not to buy the magazine and told their friends to do the same. Instead this media circus is probably exactly what the editors wanted.
to Saul
How is showing a cover of two brothers who each lost a leg who are working through rehab the equivalent of showing running shoes and flowers at the Copley Sq. memorial? A nasty remark from a basement-dwelling coward.
The story that RS is telling is
that this normal looking kid became a monster. The story is not "first responders are great." Which they are, but that's not the article.
Wrong
What is reopening the wounds of those affected is the ridiculous reaction to this cover by everyone NOT affected. Had nobody said a word and instead talked about the content of the story, or how evil the bomber really was, I'm sure the victims wouldn't have given two shts about the dumb cover.
If he was ugly
They'd want his photo out there
Meh...
Not much new info in the article (besides the copious quotes from his friends) and certainly no new insight into what caused him to morph from a kid with a fucked up home life to a murderer.
Context from us oldsters
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q&desktop_u...
It's kind of a cheesy song but if you insert the current cover into that slideshow you will get a sense of the abomination
Took you long enough!
My first thought was to see if there was a YouTube version of that I could use instead of the actual cover, but then I decided to get all angsty and outragey and all.
The best part, though, is not that that the song got them on the cover of the Rolling Stone, but that they changed the name of the publication to "Radio Times" (I think it was) for the British version to try to get on the BBC's magazine, only the BBC refused to go for the bait.
Or so I remember through the dim mists of time ...
Is it just me...
Is it just me of the general sentiment is finding the cover okay. Which seems to go against the general sentiment from all other sources today (friends, social network, coworkers, etc)
This is not an appeal to popularity (that's an ad hominem). It's an observation I was not expecting.
For me, I can see quite easily that regardless the photo was no manipulated and was on newspapers that it giving him an aura of glorification. Unlike the NYT front-page, being on the the cover of Rolling Stone is usually an honor. And many are posed just like that. See the commentator's youtube link that adamg responded to.
That said, if I failed to explained my perspective. Maybe news vblogger can explain it better. If anyone want to watch, it's about the first 2 minutes.
Wow. I just don't get it
Being on the cover means that is the biggest, the most important story of the issue. They made it clear what they think of him when they called him a MONSTER in bold face type.
Still don't get it
But I don't view Rollingstone as the band version of Seventeen.
While some friends on facebook got all outragey, the two most pertinent comments I saw were this:
" Stop & Shop, CVS, Tedeschi
" Stop & Shop, CVS, Tedeschi Food Shops, Cumberland Farms and Walgreens all announced they are boycotting Rolling Stone. - See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverag... ''
Amongst other vendors, so there you go.
Censorship at newstand level
I would like to read this article but I can't find the RS anywhere. Going to check the library. I don't appreciate my fellow Bostonians telling me what I can't read.
Um, no.
Someone should hit you in the head with a dictionary so you can look up "censorship" and not make a fool of yourself next time.
What if they DIDN'T put him on the cover?
I can just imagine the uproar. "Rolling Stone pushed the story aside!" "They don't care about the victims!" "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"
good point...
"Rolling Stone may have already forgotten, but the Boston Strong Community never will!"