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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In making that comment, you have just proved my point exactly. How on earth can you say you believe in a free press and, at the same time, say 'the public doesn't need to know anything about such people'? Who are you to decide what the public should or should not know about? The same goes for any of us. If the information is accurate, there should be no problem publishing it. You can't just brush these individuals under the carpet and hope they go away. And what other stuff do you 'not think we should know about'? It's a dangerous path down which to go.

This is not a matter of spin or interpretation: it's a direct extension of your view.

---

See the highlighted above. You have done exactly what the press and media are allowed to do freely... not deal with facts. In two posts you have "taken it a stage further" and made an "extension" of my view. Neither are my view, thus the information has been spun and twisted as you desired.

The press should be free to report facts, but not free to report spin, theories, conjecture, etc without identification of the information as such. These points are all clarified through the posts, and thus your view of extension or stages being added are simply spin. Unless you wish you debate that you are more entitled to clarify my view than I am, I really don't see any debate to be had here.

Fact > spin, fiction, speculation, etc That's my real concern with the media.



As for exceptions I did mention, there are IMO times when in the interests of security and such things that the general public should not be informed of the truth, at least until actions have been taken by the respective agencies to minimize the risks of the issues discovered. There are always times when full disclosure of the truth may endanger people without need, and times that full disclosure is the appropriate thing. This is even true on a smaller level such as personal relations with others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

See the highlighted above. You have done exactly what the press and media are allowed to do freely... not deal with facts. In two posts you have "taken it a stage further" and made an "extension" of my view. Neither are my view, thus the information has been spun and twisted as you desired.

The press should be free to report facts, but not free to report spin, theories, conjecture, etc without identification of the information as such. These points are all clarified through the posts, and thus your view of extension or stages being added are simply spin. Unless you wish you debate that you are more entitled to clarify my view than I am, I really don't see any debate to be had here.

---

There you go again, now seeking to call off any further debate on the grounds, it would appear, that not everyone agrees with you. If this is your definition of 'freedom of expression', it's not very wide-ranging — it seems to wish to restrict the press from publishing material about certain individuals just because you find them offensive (as far as I can gather), and to put an end to discussion of the surrounding issues. If you consider me again to 'not be dealing with facts', I'd be grateful if you could explain what is wrong with my comments on your position.

I don't think you really understand the issue at stake, either. The instance we are discussing has nothing to do with 'facts'. I am not aware of the facts of the content of Rolling Stone being in dispute; rather, people are debating the wisdom of putting the suspected bomber on the cover. A very different matter. If the articles inside contain inaccuracies, then fair enough, but this is not the topic in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But that's a different point. Are the 'facts' of this issue of Rolling Stone in dispute?

I also struggle to understand what you mean when you say you 'have a problem with the press/media not being held accountable at a higher level for spreading fact'. Why should anyone be held accountable for 'spreading fact'?

---

I've made clear already that I haven't read the article, and have no intention to based on my view of the "journalism" within Rolling Stone. To quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

In this case I have not read the story, and have no intention to. This is due to the past history I have seen with the publication of not dealing much with facts, and often ignoring major facts.

---

As for the second point you quoted, my wording was poor. I don't think the press should be obligated to report fact, and they should surely omit what they don't choose to report. My intention was that they should be held to standards of reporting what is factual when they report it, to the best of their ability. Though even facts can be presented in a biased way by omitting other facts, at least that standard would promote the media dealing with truths rather than untruths in most circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

They would still be accused of bias by some, just as are all news outlets.

---

This I can agree would happen without doubt. But if such a source existed and time after time you could find that the sources and means listed were accurate, would you not give it more weight than an article without sources? I know I would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

There you go again, now seeking to call off any further debate on the grounds, it would appear, that not everyone agrees with you. If this is your definition of 'freedom of expression', it's not very wide-ranging — it seems to wish to restrict the press from publishing material about certain individuals just because you find them offensive (as far as I can gather), and to put an end to discussion of the surrounding issues. If you consider me again to 'not be dealing with facts', I'd be grateful if you could explain what is wrong with my comments on your position.

---

Please quote where I suggested that debate should be called off due to differing opinions.

What I have stated was that in that particular instance there was no debate to be had. I am 100% certain that I am much more aware of my views than you are. That is fact.

In your own words you state making extensions of my thoughts, or taking it to another stage, etc. You may do so if you wish, but in this case doing so led you to untruths. So if you wish to continue stating untruths, by all means do so. If you wish to deal with facts, allow me to clarify my views as my factual thoughts, rather than you attempting to think for me. As above I would have no issue admitting to poor wording or unclear statements, but I do have issue with others attempting to add facts which were never presented by me as even an opinion of mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't think you really understand the issue at stake, either. The instance we are discussing has nothing to do with 'facts'. I am not aware of the facts of the content of Rolling Stone being in dispute; rather, people are debating the wisdom of putting the suspected bomber on the cover. A very different matter. If the articles inside contain inaccuracies, then fair enough, but this is not the topic in hand.

---

I've made clear my view on the photo. Many opposed the article I referenced that stated some wanted to see him with laser dots on his head during arrest. Just as they have a right to oppose that view, others have a right to oppose the photo that does exist. What's I've stated was simply that I would prefer these whack jobs get no coverage... and if so coverage dealing with facts. You and others can agree or disagree with that, it's simply my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I've made clear already that I haven't read the article, and have no intention to based on my view of the "journalism" within Rolling Stone.

---

Surely this disqualifies you completely from commenting on anything to do with the factual accuracy of the story contained within? This, in part, is what you're doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

My intention was that they should be held to standards of reporting what is factual when they report it, to the best of their ability.

---

Firstly, what has this got to do with the issue of whether or not the alleged terrorist is pictured on the front page?

Secondly, how do you know that the story inside did not live up to these standards, given that you have not read it and will not read it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

What's I've stated was simply that I would prefer these whack jobs get no coverage... and if so coverage dealing with facts. You and others can agree or disagree with that, it's simply my opinion.

---

How does that tally with a belief in freedom of the press? You can't just have freedom of the press as and when you wish, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

What's I've stated was simply that I would prefer these whack jobs get no coverage... and if so coverage dealing with facts.

---

In which case surely you would prefer that terrorist incidents simply are not reported and are covered up Soviet style. Coverage of a terrorist attack or gun attack will by its very nature deal with the perpetrators, after all 'who did it?' is quite a natural question to ask in such circumstances no?

As for whether this guy and his brother sought fame, they neglected rule no 1 page 1 of the Jihadists rulebook which is to record a video of themselves before the attack justifying their attack and spreading it on the internet. Do they really look like people who did it for fame or rather people who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

You've taken what I've said and read a lot into it that wasn't said.

---

Probably because I used your single post as an entry point to address many issues raised over several posts by several people. I wasn't singling you out but I didn't make that clear either. Apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

As for the story, details, motivations, etc, you'll notice that I said I would not care. I'm not a medical expert that can properly assess his mental state or upbringing, nor am I trained in interrogation that might lead to his motivations and real reasons behind his actions. I didn't suggest or imply that nobody should know, but the trained professionals can figure it all out as far as I'm concerned.

---

As an active participant in a democracy aren't you interested in fulfilling your obligations as a voter?

If he was behind an attack in my country I would be very interested to see if there was some societal or cultural failing that pushed him towards terrorism. I would then be inclined to think about whether a particular party was interested in addressing that issue when thinking of who to vote for, although obviously this would be one factor among very many.

As for not being trained or educated in this field I find that rather facile. I am no engineer, that does not stop me from reading magazines in that field regarding racecars and bikes to see how they work. Surely curiosity comes into play here no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

What I oppose is the "fame" he will get surrounding his actions. Regardless of motivations I personally think that blatant, indiscriminate terrorism that takes human life without regard should be met with harsh punishment, to include not giving such people the satisfaction of any acknowledgement of who they are. I personally think that is what many of them seek.

---

You've just stated that you have no interest in finding out what makes these people tick, so on what basis do you believe that seeking fame is what motivates these people? In the Boston bombings case I would have thought it was hatred and a desire to inflict as much physical damage on as many Americans as possible that was the motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

In which case surely you would prefer that terrorist incidents simply are not reported and are covered up Soviet style. Coverage of a terrorist attack or gun attack will by its very nature deal with the perpetrators, after all 'who did it?' is quite a natural question to ask in such circumstances no?

---

Not for many in the USA, it seems, where dismissing them as 'whack jobs' while professing not to care about the motivation behind their actions would appear to be sufficient 'analysis'.

I find it interesting that someone who refers to the Boston suspects as 'whack jobs' should also say that coverage relating to them must 'deal with facts'. In which 'facts' is the use of the phrase 'whack jobs' based, precisely? It can't be expert medical opinion, given that the same individual should profess not to care what the underlying reasons behind their terrorism actually are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

You've just stated that you have no interest in finding out what makes these people tick, so on what basis do you believe that seeking fame is what motivates these people?

---

Presumably because the individual to whom you were replying had read about this motivation in one of the media outlets they claim to so dislike and distrust owing to their lack of 'facts'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

With respect to your father and his ilk, why should behaviour, in this case of the media, have to be altered so as to cater for the fears of such people based on whatever media they happen to consume? I dislike the idea that we must now censor and legislate on those grounds.

We see the same pattern in other aspects of US media — for instance, Janet Jackson showing the merest bit of cleavage at the Superbowl provoked a reaction so outrageous as to appear nonsensical. The incident was nothing, yet the response to it was dictated by the most conservative, prudish sections of society. It seemed very backward.

---

Looking slutty is not against the law. However, it is generally a good idea to behave appropriately for the situation. It boils down to one's own intelligence, responsibility and class. If you are for abolishing those things as inventions of right wing bigots, that's a whole different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Really? In what sense has this case 'misled' anyone?

---

That very Rolling Stone has worked long and hard to establish the cult of rock stars, which is a part of the celebrity culture in general. It also has put a lot of effort into making the appearance on its cover one of the most desired decorations for any star. Then, having established a tradition of publishing cover stories on celebrities, whose fame and success many young people aspire to replicate, it publishes a portrait of a good looking young man with curly hair, effectively putting him in the same league with other celebrities. On top of that, they present the guy as "The Bomber". I don't know how much you are into the rock'n'roll culture, but the word "bomber" has generally positive connotations in that culture and appears numerous times in song lyrics, is used as nicknames etc. Now, I believe that with all likelihood at least a certain number of RS readers might have extended the association with a celebrity status to to the poor Mr. Tsarnaev. This is as misleading and irresponsible as it gets in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Surely this disqualifies you completely from commenting on anything to do with the factual accuracy of the story contained within? This, in part, is what you're doing.



Firstly, what has this got to do with the issue of whether or not the alleged terrorist is pictured on the front page?

Secondly, how do you know that the story inside did not live up to these standards, given that you have not read it and will not read it?



How does that tally with a belief in freedom of the press? You can't just have freedom of the press as and when you wish, you know.

---

I haven't disputed anything in the article, but I've simply stated my opinion on the likely intention. We got Rolling Stone for free for about 2-3 years until we told them to stop sending the things. My experience with the publication is that they rarely deal with facts much, and often but as big a spin/twist they can on anything that might connect to politics. If I read the article today and it agreed exactly with what I think it would give me no satisfaction, but drive me to seek other sources in search of the truth.

As for the coverage, the issue can be covered, analysis by appropriate experts done and any lessons learned passed on without any recognition of the people involved. We don't need a name, a specific nationality, or a photo IMO.