[MikeNoun]

I agree Diego. I felt the same way when Newsweek used this cover back in 2012.



People need to understand that they (the media) do this to get a reaction from people. So the Rolling Stone cover showing the Boston terrorist is just another way to draw attention to the publication, get people talking, and create controversy. I didn't have a problem with it.

[abefromen]

Rolling Stone had Charles Manson on the cover in 1970 so this is hardly something new for them.

Everybody is talking about this. Like I said in my first post they did it for publicity and it worked like a charm.

[Diego]

I can't seem to remember anyone upset about this one.

And what about this one?

[My442]

The media is hell bent on rising hysteria and diverting attention from the real issues.

Smartphones and texting had made a good portion of the population accustomed to sound bits and bites as gospel and facts.

Critical thinking is dropping like a stone.

America is becoming dumber every day, and the media leverages that.

And, the media lacks objectivity, and is being controlled by special interests.

[rohrt]

Originally Posted by Diego

I can't seem to remember anyone upset about this one.

And what about this one?

I think people have different expectations from Time and Newsweek verses Rolling Stones Magazine.

I have never read a rolling stones mag before but don't they typicly have celebs on the cover. It also isn't a magazine one thinks of when it comes to hard hitting news stories. I mean come on look at the name of the magazine. Why are they doing a story on this guy?

However, I have heard the story is a very well written piece.

[Diego]

Originally Posted by rohrt

I think people have different expectations from Time and Newsweek verses Rolling Stones Magazine.

I have never read a rolling stones mag before but don't they typicly have celebs on the cover. It also isn't a magazine one thinks of when it comes to hard hitting news stories. I mean come on look at the name of the magazine. Why are they doing a story on this guy?

You're completely mistaken.

[rohrt]

Originally Posted by Diego

You're completely mistaken.

Completely? I'm looking at their website. Main subjects are Music, Politics, Movies&TV, Reviews, Artists, Blogs, Photos and Video. The whole Magazine is centered around music with the exception of the politics area.

Maybe it just me. Like I said its not the magazine I think of when it come to anything other then music.

[PONTIAC-ONE]

I don't read it & never will... but that looser (B bomber) should be dead anyway.

[PMD1969]

Sometimes these boycotts can have an effect.

https://www.facebook.com/BoycottRoll...stCover?ref=nf

[marxjunk]

ive never bought or read a copy of the rag, ever...dont intend to either...

[69goatboy]

The key word here is context.

Neither UBL nor McVeigh received the Jim Morrison glamor treatment like the Boston bomber obviously has. UBL and McVeigh were depicted like the criminals they are/were. Can you say the same about the Boston bomber?

This is a publicity stunt aimed at increased sales. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by 69goatboy

The key word here is context.

Neither UBL nor McVeigh received the Jim Morrison glamor treatment like the Boston bomber obviously has. UBL and McVeigh were depicted like the criminals they are/were. Can you say the same about the Boston bomber?

Spot On
To say Jokhar was given the glamour treatment doesn't nessacarily mean Rolling Stone retouched the photo. They didn't need to. It already screams rock star/sex symbol.
The only way you could make a fair comparison to the UBL cover would be to use the Boylston Street surveillance camera image.
And to compare to McVeigh Newsweek cover, how about a photo of Jokhar as he looked after he was pulled out of that boat in Watertown Mass.


I also agree that the idea of boycotting the magazine is totally silly. The majority of people that read it are the type that could care less about moral decay and the like.

[ho428]

Originally Posted by 69goatboy

The key word here is context.

Neither UBL nor McVeigh received the Jim Morrison glamor treatment like the Boston bomber obviously has. UBL and McVeigh were depicted like the criminals they are/were. Can you say the same about the Boston bomber?

This is a publicity stunt aimed at increased sales. Nothing more, nothing less.

That was the point, to show the face of terror has no standard.
By your reasoning he should be burning a flag and screaming death to all. Sorry, but he looks like your everyday teenager, which again, was the point.

[69goatboy]

Originally Posted by ho428

That was the point, to show the face of terror has no standard.
By your reasoning he should be burning a flag and screaming death to all. Sorry, but he looks like your everyday teenager, which again, was the point.

While still confined to a hospital bed, Dzhokhar was charged on April 22 with using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death and with malicious destruction of property resulting in death. He could face the death penalty if convicted. Dzhohkar allegedly later admitted during questioning that they next intended to detonate explosives in Times Square in New York City and that they were who perpetrated the bombings on their own to defend Islam from attack. Dzhokhar reportedly also admitted to authorities that he and his brother were radicalized, at least in part, by watching Anwar al-Awlaki lectures. ABC reported on April 23, 2013, that authorities linked Tamerlan to an unsolved triple homicide in nearby Waltham that took place around the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Yep, he's just your average, ordinary, everyday teenager.

[ho428]

I said "Looks" like your everyday teenager.

[69goatboy]

Originally Posted by ho428

I said "Looks" like your everyday teenager.

Perception is reality.

Any news organization knows this, and uses this. RS is no exception.

[MikeNoun]

And this guy shot 70 people, killed 12, but they didn't give him the rock star treatment.



The difference is that girls thought the Boston killer was cute. They flooded Facebook and Twitter with love letters and support. That alone gave him the rock star status.

Combine bad behavior with good looks, and you have a recipe for a Rolling Stone cover.

[Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

The difference is that girls thought the Boston killer was cute. They flooded Facebook and Twitter with love letters and support. That alone gave him the rock star status.

Combine bad behavior with good looks, and you have a recipe for a Rolling Stone cover.

Rolling Stone has to pander 14-16 year old girls to sell it's magazine..... classic. he he he he he he

[Diego]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

The difference is that girls thought the Boston killer was cute.

There is no difference - prisoners have their admirers. I'm sure McVey had his.

[Stuart]

The photo was apparently taken right from his Twitter profile and not edited, per this response from National Geographic magazine: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-social-media/

Rolling Stone's cover image, of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnev, has already appeared widely in print—but is now creating a firestorm online, where many have accused the hallowed publication of glamorizing a suspected mass murderer.

The photo in question, a self-portrait taken directly from Tsarnev's Twitter profile, features the 19-year-old suspect looking straight at the camera. It was not lit or manipulated in any way by Rolling Stone.

So why the controversy? It's hard to say. Magazine covers are there to sell magazines. And the images editors choose are not always ones that readers necessarily agree with, says Keith Jenkins, the director of digital photography at National Geographic, who agreed to answer a few more questions about the Rolling Stone cover.

Thousands of people took to social media sites like Twitter and Rolling Stone's Facebook page to voice their opinions about the Rolling Stone cover. Why do you think the image of Dzhokhar Tsarnev incited such a firestorm on social media?

There is a pretty raw and open wound that still exists around what happened in Boston and you have to remember the fact that it was the most significant terror attack on U.S. soil since September 11. So it's understandable that emotions around this cover are pretty raw, because anything that calls attention to this case is going to be a lightning rod for commentary. Social media is simply where that takes place.

But magazine covers feature suspects all of the time and this kind of response never erupts. What's different about Rolling Stone's cover?

Even in an era of waning magazine circulation, Rolling Stone has an iconic status in our society. And we can clearly see that it retains its place, based on the response to this cover, as both a celebrity maker and celebrity validator. Celebrities can take the shape from musicians to mass murderers. And one can argue that Rolling Stone actually did what they would normally do given their editorial mission—which is to put that story front and center in front of their readers.

Rolling Stone did feature Charles Manson on the cover in 1970, to tease an interview they conducted with him in prison. But that was before social media existed.

Do we know how many letters to the editor went to Rolling Stone after Charles Manson was on the cover? Today's social media landscape allows us to see a response to a cover pretty quickly.

What do you think about the actual image? People are comparing it to Jim Morrison's cover and suggesting that Rolling Stone glamorized the image.

To their credit, they didn't doctor the photo. It's presented as it was presented in dozens—if not hundreds—of publications when it was first released. If there's anything to learn from this, the underlying lesson is that this is going to continue to happen. The role of media is to cover the stories that may be the most controversial and that's something that photography does as well. It sometimes shows us images that we don't want to see but are nonetheless important to telling the full story.

How has social media changed the way photography editors look for images for crime stories?

Ten years ago, we were looking for people's high school yearbook photos because we knew those were the photos that were most likely to exist. Now, in a lot of cases, we don't have to do that because those photos exist on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram.