Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Yep. Pages 2752, 2754 and 2755. This article comes really close to my first comment.

Mosh, your like confuses me, when I think of your contribution in the discussion.
 
mckindog said:
Can't remember if this was talked about in this thread or USA Politics.
But an interesting take on the Rolling Stone bomber cover:

http://j-source.ca/article/opinion-...stone-cover-should-make-any-journalist-queasy
Click to expand...
Interesting read, not sure how much I agree. My problem isn't the article itself, it's always good to examine a person's motives in cases like this. It's the way they presented it though, on the cover, exploiting a tragedy to sell magazines. I can't get on board with that. They're presenting him in the same way that they would Bieber or Rihanna, people who a lot of Americans look up to. It's like they're trying to pass him off as some misunderstood hero.
 
Rolling Stone’s special attitude toward its readers clearly included the assumption that they were curious as to how an apparently assimilated, “average” young man could have wreaked the murderous havoc he is alleged to have done. Far from being anomalous or opportunistic, this type of long-form journalism addressing serious issues has been a hallmark of the magazine since its inception, and it has the National Magazine Awards to prove it, including the General Excellence nod in 2007. Famously, one of those prizes was for another cover story about a high-profile killer: Charles Manson, in 1970. It was a top-selling issue.
It’s no scandale that making Reitman’s story the cover was simply another example of the economics-driven pragmatism that obtains in the magazine industry, where cover decisions are based on what the editors think will sell best. As for the choice of picture, given that the cover subject was in jail, there was no chance of a studio session (and it’s worth noting that the same image had appeared on the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post without a fuss arising.)
Click to expand...
 
Megadeth's last covers are worse. And Black Sabbath's as well. I think that album should be censored because Bill Ward does not play on it.
 
Partly yes, partly no. I think the content should be more important than the cover.
The article explains how ridiculous the outrage about this Rolling Stone issue is.
 
Forostar said:
Partly yes, partly no. I think the content should be more important than the cover.
The article explains how ridiculous the outrage about The Rolling Stone issue is.
Click to expand...



Exactly .. free speech ... people can decide if they want to buy the magazine or not.
 
An interesting unit of measure for the US population

0EfT6px.png
 
Mosh said:
Interesting read, not sure how much I agree. My problem isn't the article itself, it's always good to examine a person's motives in cases like this. It's the way they presented it though, on the cover, exploiting a tragedy to sell magazines. I can't get on board with that. They're presenting him in the same way that they would Bieber or Rihanna, people who a lot of Americans look up to. It's like they're trying to pass him off as some misunderstood hero.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you on this.

xI56YtJ.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top