Thursday, July 18, 2013

Rolling Stone Cover Draws Outrage



The first time I saw a photo of the younger brother of the Boston Marathon Bomber suspects, the one with the "nice hair", I KNEW it would just be a matter of time before a glamorized photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would be on the cover of Rolling Stone.  I KNEW IT.  Oh God did I ever KNOW IT.  Just a matter of time before those self-absorbed a-holes editors in their New York City bubble would glamorize an accused murderer just to sell magazines.  

And it came about, this accused murder is now on the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine.  Yes, the same magazine that had a popular song written "Cover of Rolling Stone" by Dr. Hook. Yes, THAT magazine.

Now, I'm no prude and I'm first in line for free press and no censorship except in extreme examples like child or animal abuse.  Oh sure, I've heard the arguments that "Adolf Hitler was on the cover of Time magazine."  Well folks, Time magazine is not the Rolling Stone.  Oh, wait a minute.  Ah yes, Charles Manson, another murderer with "nice hair" made the cover of Rolling Stone.  That doesn't mean it was right to have a glamorized photo of Charlie Boy with the "great hair" on the cover of Rolling Stone just as it is highly offensive to GLAMORIZE "Jahar" as he is affectionately becoming known by his growing stupid assed female followers. Jim Morrison of the Doors, a rock star with great hair is one thing; a murderer with great hair is something else altogether.  




Folks, I'll believe that the Rolling Stone's motives in putting "Jahar's" photo on their cover was truly altruistic when they post a photo of Adam Lanza, the murderer of the 20 children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook elementary school.  Here's a tip folks, don't hold your breath waiting for THAT cover photo.  Why?  Adam doesn't didn't have "good hair."  

Take your choice Rolling Stone editors.





14 comments:

  1. I'm surprised Rolling Stone is still in existence. I used to read it faithfully LONG ago when I was a California hippie. I also faithfully read the L.A. Free Press which liberated the hell out of me.

    I noticed that the news media was obsessed with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev long before Rolling Stone was. His photo was everywhere - and I mean EVERYWHERE - and they were trying to make him look more appealing all the time.

    Sadly, the only way to become an instant celebrity in America is to kill somebody. To make the cover of Rolling Stone you have to be an anti-American killer.

    We live in a pathetically sick society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon,

      We agree! I noticed too that the media took to whoring Tsarnaev's photo all over the place. I thought "Here we go again." They are so superficial and callous. Back when I was a conservative, one of the main reasons was the media and how they manipulate the public with their views. Remember how they tried to make Jeffery Dahmer a "poster boy"? That is until Jeffrey got fat and unappealing. They did the same thing with Ted Bundy.

      You're right, to "make the cover of Rolling Stone" you have to be an anti-American killer. We really didn't need to see a photo of Tsarnaev with his carefully tousled hair and sleepy bedroom eyes. Now did we? What surprises and disappoints me is that so many of my fellow liberals don't see this superficiality.

      Ron

      Delete
  2. Actually, it's not a glamorized photo of Tsarnaev, it's just a photo, and anyone who takes a nanosecond to read the article will see that neither the cover nor the article inside glamorizes this man.
    Plus, Rolling Stone has long written articles and featured folks on the cover, besides Manson, who have nothing to do with music.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,

      One of the rare times we disagree. Actually this is a glamorized photo of Tsarnaev. By that I don't mean it is Photoshopped or altered but a "glamor" photo that the editors of Rolling Stone chose to put on their cover. There are other photos of Tsarnaev that are less "glamorous" they could have put on their cover. My point still remains, why not put Adam Lanza on their cover? Then do a "story"on him. I frankly don't care about the story about "what a nice guy he was and then he turned into a monster etc?" Heard it all before . I think you're missing the point, I understand that Rolling Stone have people on their cover that has nothing to do with music. My point was that Tsarnaev has "good hair" so I KNEW he would be on the cover of Rolling Stone. The day they put someone like Adam Lanza on their cover then I'll believe they have truly altruistic motives. Otherwise I remain convinced that they are typically superficial New York celebrity whores.

      Delete
    2. The Rolling Stone cover is definitely a glamorized photo of Tsarnaev. It was intended to romanticize his image and make him look as sweet, cute, sexy, and innocent as possible.

      Delete
    3. Jon,

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw the obvious, that the Rolling Stone published a glamorized photo of Tsarnaev. Another blogger misunderstood my term "glamorized", like the photo was Photoshopped or something. No, what I meant was that the Rolling Stone intentionally printed a photo that showed Tsarnaev as "sweet, sexy and innocent as possible." Attempts to divert attention to the article itself didn't fool me, the carefully tousled hair photo was chosen on purpose. The editors who chose to publish this photo had no regard for those who died and were injured during the Boston Marathon Bombing. They should be ashamed of themselves.

      Ron

      Delete
    4. It's also THE photo of him used in other magazines and yet no one's complaining about that. Rolling Stone has long done stories that are not about music, and this is another example.
      I'll just say that I don't think they sent as reporter to do a story on the guy because he has good hair, I think they wanted to tell a story of how a 'normal' teenager went wrong.
      And let's face it, that's his hair. Good bad or indifferent.

      Delete
    5. Bob,

      We're talking about two different things here. I'm not talking about the story. I'm talking about the choice of a photo. If Tsarnaev had Adam Lanza hair you would never have seen THAT photo on the cover of Rolling Stone. The choice of a pretty "Rock Star" photo is what so offends people Bob. I can't imagine the pain of those family members of those Tsarvaev killed when they saw Rolling Stone print such an offensive photo of the murderer of their family members. I know I am highly offended when criminals are glamorized like this. It sickens me.

      Ron

      Delete
  3. If it bleeds (or causes blood), it leads. The motto of the industry. They're out to sell magazines, though I must admit, there might be a bit of newsworthiness in reading about what turns, from all outward appearances and reports, a fairly normal teenager into an alleged mass murderer. We shall see.

    Peace <3
    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jay ,

      I'm all for reading an article about Tsarnaev. What I object to is the picture they chose to put on their cover. Why? You're right, it sells magazines. The news media and especially trendy publications like The Rolling Stone will feature attractive people in their news stories. Ugly people don't sell magazine or newspapers. An black or unattractive girl is kidnapped or murdered won't get much if any coverage. But let that girl be a blonde beauty and the media practically has an orgasm printing their pictures. I personally find it offensive and shallow but that's me. One of my pet peeves is publications like TRS with "good hair." As I mentioned earlier, I KNEW Tsarnaev would appear on the cover eventually with his carefully tousled hair. I KNEW IT. The news media, TRS included, is so predictable.

      Ron

      Delete
  4. First...love the new look of the blog.

    I agree with Bob. But I suggest you read the story and then think like an editor. An editor's job is not only to sell magazines but also to get the story read. Now what photo would you put with it? Which photo best fits the story? You know that when anyone gains national attention that the media will focus on both the best and the worst pic of the criminal.

    There is more to this story, and let's keep it on the story for now, that relates to RS readers and 17-24 year olds in a way much different then Lanza and his crimes do. Also, there is the escalating influence of social media, the pic if from his FB page, in this story that wasn't in Lanza's. They used a pic of a good looking young man because he is a good looking young man, they didn't alter it. Would the man pictured be profiled?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean,

      When I say "glamorized" I don't mean the editors of RS doctored the photo. I meant they glamorized the killer by putting an attractive photo of him on the cover of RS. I don't care what the story says, they should never "glamorize" a murderer. I think it is an insult to the families of those who died and those who were injured. Do the story but without the "glamor" photo.

      Ron

      Delete
  5. Ron - you defined glamorized in every reply. That was not my point. Far from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean,

      All I know is that the first time I saw the "pretty boy" photo of Tsarnaev I KNEW it would end up on the cover of Rolling Stone. In fact I think I even mentioned it in an earlier blog posting. They post the photo then they write a "story" to justify the photo. When a publication like the Rolling Stone (which I like) does the same for someone like Adam Lanza then I'll believe they were really interested in "the story" of a "kid" who went wrong. When I saw that photo of the killer on Rolling Stone I was sickened to my stomach. Literally, my "gut" reaction. I thought "How could they do that?" That photo they put on the cover wasn't necessary for them to print their story. Perhaps they should have printed the photo of that guy in the wheel chair with with his two lower legs blown off , mangled limbs and all. Or they could have printed a picture of the little boy who was killed. But to print a picture such as they did, one that some sicko girl and women (and men) could latch onto as a "poor kid who went wrong and such a waste because he had such GOOD HAIR"; selfish, thoughtless and uncaring of the survivors of his victims. His "story" notwithstanding.

      Ron

      Delete