where's martin's? Boston bomber on the cover of the Rolling Stones

[BDunnell]

You do have a bit of obsession with censorship, don't you? I still don't see how my critical opinion of an article in a magazine constitutes censorship in any form.

Because that is the end result.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Because that is the end result.

I guess I need to convey that to the Rolling Stone. Then I will be on their next cover as Rudy the Censor, the evil enemy of the freedom of press yet somebody who has a bit of human touch left in the dark abysses of his lost soul. "Yes, sometimes he was a nice guy; he would help me with meeting my deadlines, but I noticed he would always get angry whenever somebody talked about the freedom of press and other liberties in his presence."

[gadjo_dilo]

I guess I need to convey that to the Rolling Stone. Then I will be on their next cover .....

Isn't it what you want?

[Spafranco]

I have read most of the posts and forgive me if I am incorrect when I state that according to many of the posters their gripe is that the photo on the cover of Rolling Stone is their sole reason of contention. The photograph?!

I see philosophical with Aristotle mentioned and then I read that the actual article has not been read. So,in essence it shows a rather sad lack of inquisitiveness and a very direct conclusion to be drawn that this lack of curiosity leads people to make rash judgements and their lack of same(curiosity) can then be exploited by others.
Not learning from history and you are bound to repeat it. Never a truer word spoken.

First it was Trayvon Martin and his death being his own fault and Zimmerman the actual killer walking away totally free. Then the verdict came in and more cheering and more character bashing of the dead kid. Then and now we have Rolling Stone being hit by those that have never even read the article.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I see philosophical with Aristotle mentioned and then I read that the actual article has not been read.

That's plainly not true.

[Spafranco]

That's plainly not true.

What is not true?

[Rudy Tamasz]

What is not true?

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

[airshifter]

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

... and I'm not at all surprised by the statements you made concerning the article. Which is really my point. As people not in the professional fields to help figure out the motives, they won't. So they have a choice in picking what they think might have been the motivations, or stating that they are clueless to the motivations. I could find a kid on the street that could give me those opinions for free.

Even the professionals and experts within the field can't fit a specific profile to terrorism. There are common characteristics, but not much in the way of specifics except those things which are a moving target. Even those characteristics lead to such a large population that finding the people that will act in such a way on those beliefs is very unlikely. Extremist or radical beliefs are becoming more and more common IMO, and often a by product of influence upon the person. It's rare that such things come to life on their own, and media has part in spreading of information or misinformation. As such, media influences the path some go down.

I've found that many people really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public. They want what they think to be public, and attempt to ignore, censor, or state any other thought is wrong.

[BDunnell]

Extremist or radical beliefs are becoming more and more common IMO, and often a by product of influence upon the person. It's rare that such things come to life on their own, and media has part in spreading of information or misinformation. As such, media influences the path some go down.

I've found that many people really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public. They want what they think to be public, and attempt to ignore, censor, or state any other thought is wrong.

How do those two viewpoints go together? A media that refuses to take the occasional risk is one that self-censors — now, that's something all media do to some extent, but there are limits. We already see our mainstream media catering increasingly for the most sensitive and prudish in society. I consider this to be a very bad thing indeed.

And given the views expressed earlier about not wishing to understand the motivation of terrorists, it is rather ironic to then read criticism of people who 'really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public'. How does that square with seeking to criticise a portrayal of the Boston suspect for being insufficiently critical? If you really believe in allowing 'all opinions', you should have no problem with what Rolling Stone did whatsoever.

[Spafranco]

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

My apologies. I thought you stated that you had not. My fault for presumption and not reading your prior posts thoroughly.