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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

I have, and it is an attempt, a poor sloppy attempt, to try to make him out as not-such-a-bad person, after-all-he-is-human-too kinda of thing. I stole the read by skimming through it at a local magazine/news/bookstore and left it on the shelf. The next day, I went back and all the copies previously on the shelf were gone. When I commented that it must have been a hot item to be going so fast, the guy who runs the store, said no, did not sell, and he got tired at looking at "the stupid photo", so he sent them back to the distributor, who took them back without fussing. He said, 50 copies delivered and four days later, 50 copies returned.

---

You did not read the article. All you did was "skim" through it and post what you wanted to here as though you are informed as to the contents.

Now, I have read the article and the picture is absolutely pertinent to what the article portrays. Remember, this is Rolling Stone.

The idea was that looking at that photograph makes him look like a normal everyday college kid in America. No different than any other. Sort of like Trayvon Martin, except this guy is Caucasian and got away with throwing a satchel containing a bomb and not one person took any notice.

Now, if they did the same for Zimmerman and posted his picture would you all be as upset? No. Like many here I bet you would be cheering that Zorro of Florida deserves to be on the cover. You know, he killed a black guy who was unarmed and only sixteen. Jeez, we should have him on the cover of Rolling Stone. They have "great articles there".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

one of them said that Tsarnaev has a very interesting and romantic face and this impressed him from the first moment.

---

You've just described how glamorization works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

But of course it doesn't mean he wasn't horrified of what T did or that he's tempted to follow his example.

---

Well, horror only adds to affection. Ever heard about how victims start feeling sympathy for their kidnappers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

I don't think it's the cover itself, but the picture they chose.

---

I believe that the same photo was used in a number of different media outlets before the Rolling Stone cover, why not boycott all of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJan

I believe that the same photo was used in a number of different media outlets before the Rolling Stone cover, why not boycott all of them?

---

Maybe because a cover picture is an attempt to market and sell the magazine and not an integral part of the story? In other words, trying to profit from the event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

Though I'm sure its a few notches removed from the insanity of killing cartoonists when people don't like the pictures they draw.

---

Sadly, not far enough. Conservatives everywhere creep me out with their desire to wallow in anger and hatred disguised as righteous indignation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

I don't think it's the cover itself, but the picture they chose. Also, i think the only known major criminal the Rolling stone had put on their cover before was Charles Manson. They didn't even use a picture for that, but had some kind of drawing.

---

Your posts are so irritating. You did not read the article so you have no idea as to why they have the 'photo on the cover. You have now mentioned this magazine as "the Rolling stone" two or three times.
If you want to or enjoy making inflammatory comments about a publication or person as in other threads, why not get the names of what or whom you dislike correct instead of having to be informed so many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Signs of a sick society.

---

For the most part I agree with this. But it could easily be said that a photo of him as a "normal" person is just as sick. Both use extreme bias just in differing directions.

And in your own words....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Is it really that bad if someone offers an alternative view to the mainstream thinking?!
Should we ban all those who provide diversity to our world?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Your posts are so irritating.

---

I'm glad my posts irritate you, if it's any consolation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

You did not read the article so you have no idea as to why they have the 'photo on the cover.

---

Did I ever say I knew why? I don't really give a rat's ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

You have now mentioned this magazine as "the Rolling stone" two or three times.

---

I know that, with your limited ability to count, one is awfully close to "two or three", so i won't belabor that point. However, it's common in american vernacular to refer to proper nouns with the article "the", such as the new york times or the rolling stone magazine. Count how many times you hear "rolling stone" versus "the rolling stone" in this song:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

If you want to or enjoy making inflammatory comments about a publication or person as in other threads, why not get the names of what or whom you dislike correct instead of having to be informed so many times.

---

Wow. That time of the month?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregor-y

Sadly, not far enough. Conservatives everywhere creep me out with their desire to wallow in anger and hatred disguised as righteous indignation.

---

I don't think it's conservatives who have been drumming up a racist lynching for about a year now, while frothing at the mouth with every bit of righteous indignation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

......But it could easily be said that a photo of him as a "normal" person is just as sick.....

---

INow I suppose most of people look ''normal'' in photos..... :confused:
What could Tsarnaev's pic present as abnormal? That he has two heads, three eyes, a tail or something like this?

Following your reasoning there also shouldn't be made documentaries about guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
However people are interested in their lives, there are books and movies about them, their early years, their families, their hobbies,etc.