Boston Marathon Page 30

  • Page

    of 31 First / Last

  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 16:56:44
    Sorry but RS just obliterated any and all respect I had for them as a publication with that. My funking dog knows you don't glamorise a killer like that.
  • Armoured_Bear 19 Jul 2013 16:58:01 10,629 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Sorry but RS just obliterated any and all respect I had for them as a publication with that. My funking dog knows you don't glamorise a killer like that.
    Massively missing the point

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 17:01:34
    Not really missing the point. It's a wholly valid criticism considering the kind of covers the magazine usually has. You could equally argue that Rolling Stone did it primarily to be edgy and drive sales in a flamebait article kind of way - it's not as if they don't have precedent for that.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 17:02:04
    I'm really not. An article would have made the point. An extremely cool, brooding, cropped image of him as another rocjstar/celeb/important figure is worse than a million stupid fox news psych profiles.
  • glaeken 19 Jul 2013 17:02:12 11,144 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    RS have done this sort of thing before.

    http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/music/2004/galleries/1970-rolling-stone-covers/rs61-charles-manson-97/500x595/22516_lg.jpg

    I am not sure I really get the outrage. Do people think RS are trying to glamorise terrorism? If anyone does think that they would have to be fairly fucking stupid.

    Edited by glaeken at 17:02:48 19-07-2013
  • FWB 19 Jul 2013 17:02:46 44,360 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Smacks of something right out of Nathan Barley.
  • Tom_Servo 19 Jul 2013 17:03:18 17,573 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Is it really glamorous? It's the same picture that was used on all the news channels during the events.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 17:06:08
    If they were going to have him on the cover them perhaps choosing a photograph that portrayed him in a more appropriate light could have been used. It looks like a photo of a rockstar. Plain and simple. And I think it is that fact that stinks of being so disrespectful.
  • glaeken 19 Jul 2013 17:06:25 11,144 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Tom_Servo Well a lot of people are saying it makes him look like a rock star so I figure that would mean it's glamorising him. As I say I don't get the fuss and may be missing exactly what people are outraged over.

    Surely it's interesting that he looks so normal? Is that not the point they are making?

    Edited by glaeken at 17:07:53 19-07-2013
  • FWB 19 Jul 2013 17:07:45 44,360 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Looks like Jim Morrison. And not chosen as a coincidence.

    It's not really a biggy tho, cos the media have been doing this for so long now that it doesn't come across as controversial anymore.

    Shouldn't be covering him at all really. That's what he psychologists tell us, but that's never going to stop.

    Edited by FWB at 17:09:03 19-07-2013
  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 17:08:58
    Of course it is glamorous. Anyone else looking at that would think he is a new rock star. When the media focuses so heavily on these killers, school shooters, focusing on how dark, different, twisted they are. How they managed to shut down an entire town in fear. It is glamorising these people. The best thing the media can do to avoid future attacks like this or school shooters is to down play the event, focus less on the killer. Don't put him in the spotlight as you inspire others to reach that infamy.


    And you certainly don't put him on the front fucking cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

    Edited by mowgli at 17:10:19 19-07-2013
  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 17:09:31
    It's not necessarily glamorous in itself, but in context it does strike as a bit thoughtless. It's certainly arguable that they chose the photo because it does look like the kind of glamour shot they usually go with on the cover.

    Which is kind of the main issue - it's pretty reasonable to assume they went with it knowing full well it could cause a bit of outrage, which drives sales, rather than genuinely doing it as a bit of "humanise the evil ones" journalism.
  • glaeken 19 Jul 2013 17:09:52 11,144 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It kind of reminded me of Che Guevara.

    Edited by glaeken at 17:11:16 19-07-2013
  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 17:10:19
    Possibly. But then again. That volume of people are not getting wound up over nothing. To me, at a glance, he looks like any other music star on their covers. That could exactly be it. But it's a dangerous gamble for a major publication to take over a very recent and sensitive issue. A bit more tact perhaps.
  • Tom_Servo 19 Jul 2013 17:12:33 17,573 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    If they'd visited him in prison and taken arty photos I'd get it, but again, it's one of the widely circulated photographs that was unavoidable on every news network in the world for about two days.

    Were him or his brother on the cover of any other news magazines like Newsweek or Time? (I know Rolling Stone isn't quite the same as those publications despite printing journalism, is that where the anger is coming from?)

    Still, if it's the bereaved families who are upset then everyone else should probably shut up, really. :)
  • glaeken 19 Jul 2013 17:13:50 11,144 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    So what is the article about anyway? I would think you have to take the cover picture along with reading the article to get the context of what they are going for. If the article is saying terrorists are becoming more sexy than I can see some outrage. Taking a stab in the dark I think it might not be about that though.

    Edited by glaeken at 17:15:45 19-07-2013
  • Khanivor 19 Jul 2013 17:14:37 40,579 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The cover is there to make people notice and buy it and read the actual article. Which, based on past journalism, is excededibgly unlikely to do the kid even one tiny favour.

    Does the simple act of covering something glamourise it? Is it glamourised because of the publication, (and people's ignorance over its content) or because the photo doesn't have him, what, covered in blood?
  • ronuds 19 Jul 2013 17:15:19 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I'm sure RS knew the cover would upset people and that they would make a lot more money because of that.
  • RedSparrows 19 Jul 2013 17:15:59 22,351 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    But a magazine cover is a very specific context for an image, and even more so for RS.

    A news report shows that, you think 'ah yeah, that's that guy, what a douche'. Time has a reputation for news. The Economist put Osama Bin Laden on the cover when he was killed, but that's the Economist.

    A magazine, with the style and orientation of RS put the same image on their cover, it's different - because of the style and orientation of RS, and who *normally* goes on the covers.I'm not gonna throw my arms up and cry foul over it, but I can understand.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 17:16:56 19-07-2013
  • cubbymoore 19 Jul 2013 17:16:08 36,488 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The article is about how cool he is.
  • Tom_Servo 19 Jul 2013 17:18:58 17,573 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    The sub suggests it's asking the question of how someone who, by all accounts, was a normal and popular guy ended up committing an atrocity.

    Rightly or wrongly, lots of newspapers, magazines and channels cover the perpetrators of things like this (the answer, admittedly, is probably wrongly). It strikes me as a touch unfair for Rolling Stone to take the brunt for this when every TV network and newspaper in the world was interviewing his mates and going through his Twitter profile for weeks in the aftermath.
  • RedSparrows 19 Jul 2013 17:21:11 22,351 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yeah, there is the more pressing, and general point, about the type of attention paid to these cases. Like that Brooker clip that has that psychology blokey on it saying (in effect) 'hey media, stop fucking doing what you shouldn't do, EVERY DAMN TIME'
  • Tom_Servo 19 Jul 2013 17:25:40 17,573 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Totally. I'm just not sure how, after all the coverage of the brothers, this is the tipping point that's practically become a scandal.

    However, although it's highly unlikely, maybe this will lead to some small change in how the media cover these tragedies in future.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 17:27:36
    It's not really a tipping point as such, it's just that everything had died down and this kind of appeared out of the blue. I'm not all that outraged about the cover, really, but I can completely understand why someone would take umbrage with it. At best it's misjudged, at worst it's crass sensationalism.
  • cubbymoore 19 Jul 2013 17:32:48 36,488 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think it's made more of a point about the media than anything else in the last 5 years.
  • neilka 19 Jul 2013 17:37:42 15,871 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The shortlist was either him or Stefansen.

    A map is like comparing velocity and speed.

  • Tom_Servo 19 Jul 2013 17:42:21 17,573 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I'm guessing the article has been in the works for a while, which is why it's come out of the blue a bit (although he was in court recently).

    Because of how long it's taken so long to write, maybe it even has something useful to say. Maybe it uses his case as a launching pad for a thoughtful discussion about the integration of young Muslim men in post-9/11 America, or something like that.

    I still don't quite get the outrage over the cover (and it really is outrage), but as I said, if the families of the dead or people who were there have been upset by the cover, then that's absolutely fair and I can't at all criticise someone who has been through such an awful event how to feel about something like this.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2013 21:58:38
    I'm sure the article is actually quite good, RS do good pieces.

    The cover however is insensitive and dangerous. Whether it is crazy angry teenagers wanting to shoot up their school or bored and angry middle class Muslims in Birmingham looking for a cause it all eventually boils down to recognition. Recognition from their peers, recognition from their parents for 'wronging' them, and above all recognition from society for ignoring them. What do you think all these mad rambling videos before atrocities are about if not an attempt at making them self a potential idol. A figure that will be talked about in years and will inspire others. Terrorism now increasingly takes the former of these small groups looking for recognition by way of infamy, making them increasingly hard to combat. These people want a counter cultural figure to follow. These people want to be a counter cultural figure themselves.

    Putting a picture of a terrorist looking like a jihadi Jim morrison* on the front cover of rolling stones is about as awesome a recognition as you can get for someone of his and his impressionable peers ages. It is going to lead those that are sitting on the sidelines with nothing to lose to take that step down the path that leads to terrorism/school shooting.

    Kill enough kids and you will get a week of solid attention from all the news channels. Do it menacingly enough and they will probably stump up for psychoanalytical opinions on you. Which will now lead to your name being added to the history books. Your name is now forever ingrained in the minds of people the world over. Your town, your school, your street will never, ever forget who you are. You have now gone from nothing to the most important person in the world. And fuck me, forget the fact that you are now going to be on every newspaper front page for at least week (so people can read about you a hundred years from now), if you are lucky you will be on the front page of Rolling Stone! Taking up more space and looking even cooler than Cobain, Guevara, Tupac etc.

    That is why it is bad. It is dangerous and it is insensitive. They either knew what they were doing which puts them below fox et al. Or they were too stupid to realise how dangerous it is. Or they just didn't care which makes them cunts. Either way it is a fucking shame.

    *stolen from the Times.

    Edited by mowgli at 22:00:13 19-07-2013
  • Armoured_Bear 20 Jul 2013 17:16:01 10,629 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    I'm really not. An article would have made the point. An extremely cool, brooding, cropped image of him as another rocjstar/celeb/important figure is worse than a million stupid fox news psych profiles.
    Maybe they're making a point about America's idolising of good looks/rock stars/celebrities and the stereotypes of Terrorist appearances.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • Deleted user 20 July 2013 17:17:14
    They're really not, though.
  • Page

    of 31 First / Last

Log in or register to reply