Page 55 of 58 FirstFirst ... 5455152535455565758 LastLast
Results 811 to 825 of 862
Like Tree640Likes

Thread: Explosions at Boston Marathon

  1. #811
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    50,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karistiona View Post
    I don't think that's what they're trying to say at all. Tsarnev perhaps doesn't look like what you might imagine a terrorist to look, and it's jarring to realise that the handsome boy on the cover is responsible for death and pain and misery. I'd think that generally people want their monsters to look "evil" and that's just not the case here. It sounds like an interesting article, I'm looking forward to reading it.
    This. How people interpret that as 'glamourising' is beyond me. I guess it's easier to blame the media than to realise the world isn't black and white and that the sweet looking kid committed an act of evil so huge that people will be talking about it for decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellatheball View Post
    I don't care that he's on the cover. It bugs me that the photo/cover is reminiscent of the old John Lennon or Jim Morrison covers. They clearly were trying to glamorize him and make it interesting. It's also fair to make an argument that this is a magazine that is marketed to young people who are strongly influenced by image and notoriety. Does this give the wrong message? Go out and do something horrific and we'll celebrate you? Maybe. It seems sensationalist and unnecessary.
    so because of what he did, magazines can only report on him using bad, amateur graphic design (see time covers above thread) and unflattering pictures? How is the RS cover 'celebrating' anyone? By making him look good? He wasn't an ugly kid, his actions won't change that.

    It's a good cover, and yeah aesthetically better designed than RS' usual and definitely better than the amateur crap at time and Newsweek, but I don't think means they're in any way glamourising, they are using the best image they could find that best represents the contents of the article. That's just good graphic design and a concern for aesthetics. I guess now it's bad to use good graphic design if you're reporting about a bad dude? lol


    And making him 'interesting'? He's already interesting on his own. It's an interesting story. Doesn't mean he's not an asshole but he's definitely already interesting. And I'm more interested in reading an in-depth, by all accounts subtle piece of journalism than the black-and-white sensationalistic crap most of the media specialises in.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  2. #812
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,314

    Default

    I believe that the editors of Rolling Stone (if they had any brains) had to know from the start that this would be a controversial cover. Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi is claiming otherwise - that they are shocked and freaked out and didn't expect this at all. If that is the case, they are incredibly naive. One of the problems for Rolling Stone is that they do a lot of celeb stories and the celeb will get a fawning, glamour type of shot to accompany the story. And this cover looks like one of those celeb covers.

    Taibbi points out that the New York Times used the same photo on its May 5 front page, without any controversy, but all that really does is point out the fact that the public perceives the Rolling Stone as a pop-culture/celeb-oriented magazine and the New York Times as hard news and analysis newspaper. I wouldn't encourage anyone to boycott Rolling Stone. I'm saying that Rolling Stone doesn't really know how the general public perceives it as a periodical.

  3. #813
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    50,858

    Default

    ^^^
    yeah sure but i don't think knowing something is controversial is a good enough reason to pull it or to change the story or the cover in any way. it's controversial because people don't read real journalism anymore and want easy to digest fluff pieces where no real thinking - and especially no real questioning - is required.
    it's controversial because people have stupid, knee-jerk reactions to shit they haven't read, and because people don't know what rolling stone actually does publish real stories (it used to even more before, not so much now). but again, the fault lies with the public for being fucking ignorant. do your research, becky, don't just get offended without first knowing all the facts and using your brain for actual thinking.

    i can't even begin to tell you how much it pisses me off that any magazine or media organisation has to do damage control for publishing an in-depth story on anything, and all because people are too stupid to read anything these days and because it doesn't conform to the images provided by fox news or time or newsweek.
    re: the blog entry you quoted, they do point out that much of the controversy is caused by people's ignorance not just of real journalism but of the fact that RS actually publishes hard news. and again, it's not their fault people don't know this.

    But Rolling Stone has actually been in the hard news/investigative reporting business since its inception, from Hunter S. Thompson to Carl Bernstein to Bill Greider back in the day to Tim Dickinson, Michael Hastings, Mark Boal, Janet Reitman and myself in recent years.
    One could even go so far as to say that in recent years, when investigative journalism has been so dramatically de-emphasized at the major newspapers and at the big television news networks, Rolling Stone's role as a source of hard-news reporting has been magnified. In other words, we're more than ever a hard news outlet in a business where long-form reporting is becoming more scarce.


    the bolded part is sadly true. RS shouldn't have to apologise and do damage control because people are ignorant. it's that simple.

    As to the question of why anyone would ever put a terrorist on a cover of a magazine for any reason beyond the opportunity to slash a red X through his face or depict him in crosshairs, there's an explanation for that. Terrorists are a fact of our modern lives and we need to understand them, because understanding is the key to stopping them.But in trying to understand someone like a Tsarnaev, there is a delicate line between empathy and sympathy that any journalist has to be careful not to cross. You cannot understand someone without empathy, but you also have to remember at all times who this person is and what he or she did. I think author Janet Reitman did an excellent job of walking that line, but certainly this kind of approach is going to be inherently troubling to some, because it focuses on the criminal and his motivations and not his victims and their suffering.
    Which brings us to point No. 2, the idea that the cover photo showed Tsarnaev to be too nice-looking, too much like a sweet little boy.
    I can understand why this might upset some people. But the jarringly non-threatening image of Tsarnaev is exactly the point of the whole story. If any of those who are up in arms about this cover had read Janet's piece, they would see that the lesson of this story is that there are no warning signs for terrorism, that even nice, polite, sweet-looking young kids can end up packing pressure-cookers full of shrapnel and tossing them into crowds of strangers.
    Thus the cover picture is not intended to glamorize Tsarnaev. Just the opposite, I believe it's supposed to frighten. It's Tsarnaev's very normalcy and niceness that is the most monstrous and terrifying thing about him. The story Janet wrote about the modern terrorist is that you can't see him coming. He's not walking down the street with a scary beard and a red X through his face. He looks just like any other kid.


    Read more: Matt Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
    Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


    i'm quoting the blog entry mohandas linked to, and bolding parts of it, because i feel it can't be explained enough and yet people still don't seem to get it and confuse this with 'glamourising'. it boggles the mind.
    Last edited by sputnik; July 21st, 2013 at 01:42 PM.
    twitchy2.0 and faithanne like this.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  4. #814
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    ^^^
    yeah sure but i don't think knowing something is controversial is a good enough reason to pull it or to change the story or the cover in any way. it's controversial because people don't read real journalism anymore and want easy to digest fluff pieces where no real thinking - and especially no real questioning - is required.
    it's controversial because people have stupid, knee-jerk reactions to shit they haven't read, and because people don't know what rolling stone actually does publish real stories (it used to even more before, not so much now). but again, the fault lies with the public for being fucking ignorant. do your research, becky, don't just get offended without first knowing all the facts and using your brain for actual thinking.
    Yup, I'm not saying that the issue should be pulled or that the cover should be changed, but part of being an experienced editor in the real world is being astute enough to know what kind or reactions your cover might engender and then realizing that you have to live with the consequences.

    The story stands on its own. They could have put any image at all on the cover, whether it is Tsarnaaev, or something entirely related and the story inside would be the same. The cover is a draw. It's supposed to generate interest. It's probably done that, but it has also drawn a lot of antipathy, too.

    I would not categorize, in general, peoples' reactions to this cover as knee-jerk as much as heartfelt. If you see this guy's picture anywhere, and you know that he has blown up three people, including an eight-year-old, and made a bunch of people amputees, you could honestly be kind of revolted by seeing a gauzy glamour photo of the guy peering out at you as you go down the grocery aisle. Remember, too, that the way magazines are typically presented, you usually only see the top half of the magazine, so a lot of people walking by are going to miss "The Bomber" caption.

  5. #815
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,579

    Default

    Generally I do not like censorship but I do think that (a) people and institutions should use their common sense and "self-edit" when necessary, and (b) people have the right to walk away from something that is put out there. So, generally speaking, I'm OK with this cover.

    I live in the area, Jeff Bowman (sp?) works at the Costco I frequent, I've attended the Marathon probably about 15 times in the last 25 years, and my niece was stuff inside in that radius in Watertown while that douchebag was hiding out, so the whole thing hits kinda close to home.

    It does look a little too rock star for my liking, but hey. As far as glorifying or glamorizing him, the damage was already done as soon as those bombs went off and all those budding jihadists out there found out that it was a couple of young guys acting mostly on their own who did the deed. Every image of the explosion that was telecast, every shot of the cops staking out Watertown, etc. are a wellspring of inspiration for others who are similarly inclined. Can I guarantee that some asshole out there won't do something similar in hopes of getting his picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone? Hell, no there are no such guarantees.
    Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

  6. #816
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,425

    Default

    ‘The Bomber’: Rolling Stone senior editor Christian Hoard tweets, then deletes response to cover controversy

    Christian Hoard, Rolling Stone’s senior editor, tweeted – then quickly deleted – his response to ‘The Bomber’ cover controversy.

    Rolling Stone senior editor Christian Hoard tweeted - then deleted - his response to the Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cover controversy.


    "I guess we should have drawn a dick on Dzhokhar's face or something?"

    Despite Hoard's quick deletion, Twitter users reacted badly to his "tasteless, condescending response."

    @simonwilliam via Twitter

    Simon Vozick-Levinson defended the cover.

    Meanwhile, associate editor Simon Vozick-Levonson defended the cover on Twitter Wednesday.


    "We call him a monster on the cover. It's provocative to see him looking like a regular American kid, but that's kind of the point!"


    Thousands of people and several retail chains have vowed to boycott the issue since the controversial cover was first shown.


    The issue is scheduled to hit stands Friday.





    Read more: ‘The Bomber’: Rolling Stone senior editor Christian Hoard tweets, then deletes response to cover controversy Â* - NY Daily News
    sputnik likes this.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  7. #817
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,314

    Default

    Beware the Christian hoard!!!

  8. #818
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    53,579

    Default

    Is that some house packed to the rafters with bibles and crucifixes?

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

    -- Stephen Hawking

  9. #819
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    50,858

    Default

    teh stupid. it hurts.
    so now it's "condescending" when people call you out on your idiocy?
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  10. #820
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    On Howard Stern's Sybian
    Posts
    2,837

    Default

    FUCK Rolling Stone. Sold out, irrelevant piece of trash since the '70s... And I'm not even particularly bitching about this cover, just RS in general.

    Anyhow, I con-fus-ed. RS isn't about music (hasn't been for decades), and it's apparently not about "pop culture" anymore, (since it's covers are now reserved for breaking news) so WTF is it about, exactly? Not condescending, I'd just really like to know what they're going for these days.
    "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."

  11. #821
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,314

    Default

    It depends on what mood Jan Wenner is in when you ask him.
    Clubber Lang likes this.

  12. #822
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    53,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clubber Lang View Post
    ) so WTF is it about, exactly?
    Wikipedia to the rescue. "Rolling Stone is a magazine published every two weeks that focuses on politics and popular culture."

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

    -- Stephen Hawking

  13. #823
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twitchy2.0 View Post
    Wikipedia to the rescue. "Rolling Stone is a magazine published every two weeks that focuses on politics and popular culture."
    Based on content it should read more like "focuses on popular culture and politics".
    Clubber Lang likes this.

  14. #824
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    On Howard Stern's Sybian
    Posts
    2,837

    Default

    Yeah, the rag sucks. Now that being said, the writers are quite brilliant (most of them), and they're just paid to write what they're told to so I don't blame them. It's the powers-at-be over there, the corporate sponsors, etc. that killed off RS ages ago.
    "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."

  15. #825
    fgg
    fgg is online now
    Elite Member fgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    29,505

    Default

    Boston suspect's sister charged in NY bomb threat

    NEW YORK (AP) — Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's sister was arrested Wednesday on suspicion she threatened to bomb a woman who previously had a romantic relationship with her boyfriend.

    Ailina Tsarnaeva, who lives in North Bergen, New Jersey, made the threat against an upper Manhattan woman via telephone on Monday, police said. She turned herself in at a Manhattan police precinct, and police charged her with aggravated harassment.

    Several media outlets reported Tsarnaeva told the Harlem woman she had "people who can go over there and put a bomb on you."

    Officers gave Tsarnaeva an appearance ticket and released her pending a Sept. 30 court date.

    A telephone number linked to Tsarnaeva was disconnected. Her lawyer, George Gormley, said he had left his office and would speak Thursday.

    Tsarnaeva has been required to check in with Massachusetts probation officers since prosecutors said she failed to cooperate with a 2010 counterfeiting investigation.

    Prosecutors said Tsarnaeva picked up someone who passed a counterfeit bill at a restaurant at a Boston mall and "lied about certain salient facts during the investigation."

    At a hearing last October, Gormley said Tsarnaeva was pregnant with her second child and was unlikely to flee.

    Tsarnaeva once lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at an apartment linked to her brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who were the subjects of an intense manhunt in the Boston area in the days after the deadly April 2013 marathon bombing.

    Records show Tsarnaeva now lives with a sister, Bella Tsarnaeva.

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is charged with building and planting the two pressure cooker bombs that exploded near the marathon's finish line, killing three people and injuring more than 260 others. He has pleaded not guilty.

    Tamerlan Tsarnaev died after a gunbattle with police.

    Boston suspect's sister charged in NY bomb threat

    what a family
    can't post pics because my computer's broken and i'm stupid

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 7th, 2013, 01:34 AM
  2. Stockholm explosions suicide attack: Swedish television
    By celeb_2006 in forum Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 14th, 2010, 08:05 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 6th, 2010, 10:47 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 12:37 PM
  5. No Boston Marathon for Katie Holmes
    By Honey in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: January 14th, 2008, 11:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •