Boston Marathon Page 31

  • Page

    of 31 First / Last

    Next
  • Deleted user 20 July 2013 18:38:00
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    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.
    But they aren't. And even if they were it would make them worse.
  • Armoured_Bear 20 Jul 2013 20:09:53 10,585 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    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.
    But they aren't. And even if they were it would make them worse.
    Says who?

    'Fundamentalist' Americans miss the point of Boston bomber cover

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • Deleted user 20 July 2013 20:25:05
    Says context. Compare the historic covers of Rolling Stone vs the covers of Time or New York Times and see the difference and realise why there wouldn't have been as much of an outrage had either of those used it. Consider that "getting on the cover of Rolling Stone" has been a euphemism for achieving fame since the 70s. Consider why they released the image of the cover way before they released the article text. Consider that Rolling Stone were in a bit of a PR war even before the cover, desperate to present themselves as a font of hard-hitting long-journalism despite only really covering one or two such stories a year, if that. The picture was almost certainly chosen based on the magazine's self interest - IE, commercialism, rather than any attempt to make some sort of point.

    Edited by meme at 20:29:00 20-07-2013
  • TheRealBadabing 21 Jul 2013 00:40:47 1,299 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    So far he's just been charged with a crime. No matter how heinous that crime is, treating the guy like he is already proven guilty is arguably more inappropriate than using his image to sell some magazines.

    He might have run from the police, might have confessed, might have given great evidence to the authorities but until his day in court he is not a criminal. At that point he deserves everything he gets.

    I would be more concerned about the press-fuelled presumption of guilt that anyone accused of a high profile crime has to suffer these days.
  • joeymoto108 21 Jul 2013 01:58:55 641 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Says who?

    'Fundamentalist' Americans miss the point of Boston bomber cover
    From the article:
    "And it is herein that the brilliance of this cover lies: it presents Tsarnaev as the boy-next-door, and then invites readers on an investigative journey that explains precisely why he isn't. It challenges the way in which Americans perceive the world, and cleverly illustrates the danger of stereotyping by subverting the classic, benign Rolling Stone cover. It asks readers to consider what drives a young man with opportunities to lash out at the country that has taken him in, and encourages thoughtful reflection on how violence is bred by apparently normal people in an apparently normal society, how the US is perceived abroad, how such atrocities might be prevented in future."

    What utter contrived bullshit. This is purely for public outrage and the shock value in order to shift units. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that 'normal' people are easily as capable of violence as the stereotypical 'social outcast egotistical loser' profile which fits the bill of most of the high profile US shooters of the past.
    Honestly, this pisses me off; whether he's on the front of the page for fame or infamy means fuck all, it's the fact that he's there in the first place which is worrying. It sends the wrong message to those who were contemplating of doing a similar atrocity.

    'Look at you, hacker: a pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?'

  • Page

    of 31 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply