[vwmailman]

I just saw in the news that rolling stone has put one of the Boston marathon bombers on its cover! What a disgrace! I hope that all Americans boycott rolling stone magazine.

[abefromen]

Publicity.......it worked.

[indymanjoe]

Pissed me off as well..extremely disrespectful.How many are going to try and get on the cover of a magazine now.Sad day

[stevep]

They got what they wanted....because everyone talking about Rolling Stone!

[Old Blue 66]

Yea, I wasn't to thrilled with it either. Ive always looked to Rollling Stone's covers for cool entertainer pics - musicians and politicians.

[Old Blue 66]

Originally Posted by indymanjoe

Pissed me off as well..extremely disrespectful.How many are going to try and get on the cover of a magazine now.Sad day

Why? Its their magazine. They can what ever they want.

[ho428]

At first I thought the same. WTF!!!
But then I read an op-ed about it on a news site. It was done to provoke discussion, and to show that he's a nice looking kid, meaning that terrorist do not all look like raving lunatics. They can literally be the popular boy next door.

Still not sure I agree with it, but at least I read a reason behind it. Heard the actual article was pretty good and goes in depth how he went from such a well liked kid to terrorist, but I never read RS.

[chrisinestes]

Yup... Nothing but a publicity stunt... and it worked...

Chris

[Alvin]

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=732488

[hectore3]

They wanted eyeballs and mouse clicks and succeeded.

[Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by ho428

At first I thought the same. WTF!!!
But then I read an op-ed about it on a news site. It was done to provoke discussion, and to show that he's a nice looking kid, meaning that terrorist do not all look like raving lunatics. They can literally be the popular boy next door.

Still not sure I agree with it, but at least I read a reason behind it. Heard the actual article was pretty good and goes in depth how he went from such a well liked kid to terrorist, but I never read RS.

Sounds like a left wing excuse to me. Even if that alleged purpose is true, there's no need of making him a celebrity. People already know what he looks like, and low information folks are not going to be any more vigilant because of this.

[poncho_cruz]

I'll bet the guys from Dr. Hook would never have dreamed something like this would ever happen.

I wonder if he'll buy 5 copies for his mother.

[My442]

Don't like it, don't read it.

The media whores are having a field day, just like the Zimmerman case.

Where is the outrage for the 20 million unemployed?

How about 48 million on food stamps?

[mike nixon]

Nikki Sixx made a comment about this on Facebook. He's not happy about it either.

Mike

[thepast]

Totally disgraceful.....not surprised.

[Old Blue 66]

There's a letter from the mayor of Boston floating around. Apparently he's not happy about it either. That's if the letter is legit.

[MikeNoun]

Ummmm....it's Rolling Stone Magazine, which has as much credibility as The National Enquirer.

When circulation is at an all time low, magazines pull stunts like this to boost ratings, and it almost always works. Wonderful covers, like...

- Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue
- ESPN naked body issue
- Time Magazine showing an older child sucking on mom's teet
- Newsweek showing Obama as the first gay president
- Rolling Stone featuring a phony, slanderdous George Bush interview

They do this to create controversy, get web hits, and continue their progressive agenda by changing traditional American values.

[Diego]

I'm not sure why people are up in arms over this.

They have a lead story on the perpetrators of a great terrorist plot, so wouldn't it make sense to advertise it on the cover?

It reeks of political correctness to have issues with the cover. And to suggest they should be boycotted is another bull****e item of our times - everyone has a chip on his shoulder waiting to be outraged over the stupidest things. Cry me a river.

[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.