World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Rolling Stone cover controversy
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=71215		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  David [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Rolling Stone cover controversy
Image

If you visit the magazine's Facebook profile, for instance, you will see people are throwing incredibly dramatic bitch fits over this cover.

I find the controversy mystifying myself. The magazine has always covered political and social stories, not just music, and placement on the cover does not equal automatic glorification, particularly when said subject is directly described as a "monster." They put Charles Manson on the cover in 1970, for instance. I s'pose this is a disillusioning fact for many in America, but con men, murderers, religious radicals, war criminals, etc. and the questions raised by their existence are fascinating and therefore a natural subject for a magazine trying to move as many copies as they can to cover.

It sure is a more provocative editorial choice than another cover focused on, say, the legacy of The Dark Side of the Moon.
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
I can understand why people are upset. I just don't agree with them.

Maybe it's just too soon for the cover. Who knows. I don't have a big issue with it.
Author:  David [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Magnus wrote:
if these guys weren't Muslims, no one would call them a terrorist and would have forgot about them by now.

Not sure I agree with this... Detonating a bomb in the crowd at the Boston Marathon is a rather enormous act of criminality. I believe it would still earn its place in history if the perpetrator were a Timothy McVeigh style angry white man.
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Here's the question... If it were a white man that did the bombing, and he was on the cover, would there be an outrage like this?

I don't think so.
Author:  David [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
He is white.
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
He's not WHITE white, though.
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Magnus wrote:
David wrote:
Magnus wrote:
if these guys weren't Muslims, no one would call them a terrorist and would have forgot about them by now.

Not sure I agree with this... Detonating a bomb in the crowd at the Boston Marathon is a rather enormous act of criminality. I believe it would still earn its place in history if the perpetrator were a Timothy McVeigh style angry white man.


the death toll was too low. also, the news media works a lot faster today than it did before.

also, we just had a dude shoot up a movie theater a year ago and a dude shoot up an elementary school six months back. And people have already started to forget.

If something like OKC bombing happens today, the initial response would be gigantic obviously but it doesn't get lasting power as it did back then.


People defend guns. People don't defend bombs. Also, people are racist motherfuckers.
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Magnus wrote:
Chippy wrote:
He's not WHITE white, though.


thats not racist.

oh wait it is.


Well he's not!
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
What's in a name!
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Oh yes it does.
Author:  Mau [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
It always comes down to how white someone is or his religion.

Like every.single.time.
Author:  BJ [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Chippy wrote:
Oh yes it does.

wow
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
It does. That's a fact.

Just watch that Key and Peele skit.
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
So you don't think black/mexican/white/asian people have names that usually give away their race?

You're an idiot, then.
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Also, if you don't like Key and Peele, you're also an idiot. They're hilarious.
Author:  Jiffy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Chippy wrote:
He's not WHITE white, though.


He could pass for Italian. White.
Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
But could he pass as a Canadian? Nope.

Not white white.
Author:  Argos [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Calling him a monster is the most offensive thing about the cover.
Author:  Jiffy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Anyway, Boston is my hometown, but I can't seem to work up anything approaching outrage over this.
Author:  Libs [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
I'm bothered by the context of this. I mean, I realize his face has already been posted hundreds of thousands of times in news articles and such. But Rolling Stone fundamentally promotes rock stars/celebrity on its cover. It shouldn't be a magazine that his face is on the cover of.

I'm not outraged, certainly, I just don't think it was a very good idea.
Author:  Jiffy [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Libs wrote:
I'm bothered by the context of this. I mean, I realize his face has already been posted hundreds of thousands of times in news articles and such. But Rolling Stone fundamentally promotes rock stars/celebrity on its cover. It shouldn't be a magazine that his face is on the cover of.

I'm not outraged, certainly, I just don't think it was a very good idea.


They've had several politicians on the cover, though.
Author:  David [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Plus, forty-three years ago (when Rolling Stone Magazine was way, way ballsier, before it underwent what I will term Libs-ification):

Image

I believe people are smart enough to realize this is a different type of Rolling Stone cover. No one is going to say, "Oh, no, my head is spinning. I can no longer tell the difference between Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Roger Daltrey. Must acquit, must acquit."
Author:  Excel [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Loathe it.

Making these goons into icons. Why don't they post Todd Beamers face instead.

Seriously, folks wonder why America has an obsession with darkness and death...
Author:  David [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
Excel's argument is the one I find especially eye-roll worthy.

As I said in the first post, dangerous people who disrupt and operate outside society are fascinating. This is not an invention of the modern media. Call it what you want, but the school shooter, with his fractured mind and brutal tendencies, will always be more interesting to explore than the quote-unquote innocent, fondly remembered victim.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rolling Stone cover controversy
There is a controversy about it? Meh
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/