Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover

[Trieste]

It must've been painful when you were shot and had your legs blown off.

Victims of an alleged bombing. Until the trial is finished, I'd be more comfortable if we tried to not smear Mr. Tsarnaev by stating there was a bombing and thus implying he's responsible since he's the only suspect in custody.

I don't see why you need to ask that question unless you ignored what that quote was in response to.

Oh you did... Nevermind.

I didn't, and neither did three of the four people in the article you linked. So ... there's that.

The only thing on trial is who did the bombing, not whether the bombing happened. So... there's also that.

There's also the fact that you're still using "THINK OF THE VICTIMS" as your only basis for dispute, which is intellectually lazy and pretty disingenuous. I thought at first you'd just gotten carried away, but ...

Whatever the case, bored now.  :-)

[Ephiral]

Why are you asking me? Unlike you, I'm not ignoring the victims here and simply making their POV heard.

Because you're the one asserting this position.

Because its less glamorous. Just because in your opinion, you disagree, doesn't make your opinion more valid and correct then those of the victims.

This is circular. "What makes it less glamorous?" "It's less glamorous". I am looking for actual traits here, not self-reference. Also, the way you claim to speak for the victims is getting tired - I'll note that the "victims' opinions" bit you linked quoted exactly zero victims of the bombing, and one victim of the events which followed - who claimed to be speaking not for himself, but for others. Stop trying to stand on the backs of the victims and call it a moral high ground.

I don't believe I stated it's a measurement like gallons of liquid or the inches on a yardstick. I believe I stated that many victims and others were outraged by what they interpreted was a positive and flattering picture of him. If you wish to quantify it mathematically, be my guest but I won't engage in such a silly exercise. And again, I must reiterate "Right, because outrage is always rational and justified. Mob mentality isn't a thing, and lynch mobs never ever happen. Oooor people make poor judgement calls when they're acting on an emotional basis, and worse ones when it's something that hits them hard emotionally. You know, whichever."

No, you said that what made it glamorous was that it incited outrage. I was responding to this - if we can tell glamour by the outrage it generates, then where are the protests of People? Once again, lying is a bad idea when the record is right there.

And what exactly is objectionable about that statement? Do you really think people's judgement gets markedly better when they're basing decisions on emotions in the middle of a mob frenzy?

All the more reason to use a more neutral picture.

So stop dancing around it and actually define your position. What traits of this picture, exactly, are not neutral? What traits should we be looking for in a "neutral" picture that this one lacks?

Where is this magical neutral environment of yours and where can I find it? Until we get robots for jurors I'm afraid you're SOL with your false dilemmas.

Where did I ever utter the phrase "neutral environment"? Specific quote, please. No, what I think is that a courtroom's context should be a presumption of innocence, and this is vital to anything resembling a fair trial. You claim that you're okay with a presumption of guilt, and that you want a fair trial. These are mutually exclusive; which do you reject?

What's wrong with posting a neutral picture?

This is not a response to the question I asked. There is nothing wrong with posting a neutral picture; my position, despite your attempt to misrepresent it, is that this picture is neutral. You cited mugshots as "more neutral", so getting back to the point: How is a mugshot neutral, given that it directly links the person to the crime and suggests that they are the best candidate for guilt? Please note: "best candidate" is a concept that is psychologically sticky.

Rolling Stones is not a nonprofit.

Did I say it was, or did I say that nonprofit journalism exists - and thus the first responsibility of journalism cannot be to make money, as you claimed?

I'm not framing the debate in that sense. You're editorializing me as doing so but that doesn't make it fact.

You have repeatedly acted like this is not a neutral picture, and like you'd presented a better alternative. You have failed to justify either of these positions.

Repeatedly and you do it again below.

Really? Because a ctrl-F fails to find the phrase "more valuable" outside of this specific clause of the discussion - which started when you accused me of this. Yet another blatant lie.

First off, they're alleged victims. Until the trial is over, there is no way we can reliably state what happened in Boston. Second, it happens all the fucking time. Journalists aren't robots. Witnesses aren't robots and people with personal investment in stories tend to be sources of said stories and aren't robots either.

No, they are definitely victims. They are allegedly his victims. This distinction has been pointed out to you already. If you cannot even pretend to discuss this honestly and in good faith, why are you here? As to your second point: This is why journalists tend not to be the people who are personally involved. We don't block publication because witnesses or victims say "Don't talk about this." In fact, there are specific laws in place in pretty much all of the Western world preventing us from doing so.

I'm not a victim of the Boston Marathon's alleged bombing by an alleged pair of bombers and as I've stated repeatedly I'm not torn over (or angry) by this Rolling Stones cover. I merely wish to make known the POV of the victims that you and others have ignored.

I haven't ignored it; you've failed to provide it. Lots of people claiming to speak for the victims, but that's all.

It's not a lie. It's a debating tactic, and just as honest as the ones you have been using in this thread from your first post.

"I would [show you a picture] if RS would let me" is a statement which is factually untrue, and which you know to be untrue. This is what we call a lie.

As Trieste stated earlier: Also, this controversy is overlooking the fact 'the victims' are also his family, and quite honestly I don't think it's a terrible thing to treat their son/brother/whatever as a human.

So you only care about some victims, not others. Interesting.

I care deeply for the victims. All of them. I just don't think that what you claim their opinion of an article is is valid grounds for censorship, or that this picture is particularly non-neutral.

What's the standard of evidence then? Where's the line?

The standard of evidence varies, depending on whether the statements in question are about living people with rights. Funny, that.

So a confession is the only legal proof you need followed by the "media" agreeing in lieu of an actual trial? Interesting.

A confession that was clearly given freely and without compulsion? Yeah, I generally take that as sufficient for media purposes, if not for a court of law. Now, just so we're clear, nothing after the horizontal line is directed at you.

That's a good point a hadn't considered.

It's one I take as pretty damn important. If we treat the bad guys as Evil Mutants who are simply out to destroy all we hold dear, we cannot possibly act to reduce the number of them that appears and will have a very hard time reducing the damage they do. We'll also be completely and totally incapable of thinking that anybody on "our side" would ever be capable of such things.

Thank you for clarifying, and I'm sorry I asked. I made a mistake myself for assuming the photo was taken by RS. Should have researched that before saying as much.

Frankly, no apology is necessary. I appreciate you asking; better than assuming.

[Neysha]

I didn't, and neither did three of the four people in the article you linked. So ... there's that.

Ummm your math is wrong.

The only thing on trial is who did the bombing, not whether the bombing happened. So... there's also that.

The bomber and bombing aren't related?

There's also the fact that you're still using "THINK OF THE VICTIMS" as your only basis for dispute, which is intellectually lazy and pretty disingenuous. I thought at first you'd just gotten carried away, but ...

Because that is the core of the dispute or did you miss the OP?

[Neysha]

Because you're the one asserting this position.

I'm not. I'm pointing out others do.

This is circular. "What makes it less glamorous?" "It's less glamorous".

It's a matter of opinion. You have yours, the victims have theirs.

I am looking for actual traits here, not self-reference.

So you can belittle then with vanilla descriptions like you've already been doing? I'm not falling for that tactic.

Also, the way you claim to speak for the victims is getting tired - I'll note that the "victims' opinions" bit you linked quoted exactly zero victims of the bombing, and one victim of the events which followed - who claimed to be speaking not for himself, but for others. Stop trying to stand on the backs of the victims and call it a moral high ground.

Stop ignoring the victims and furthermore trying to define who they are.

No, you said that what made it glamorous was that it incited outrage. I was responding to this - if we can tell glamour by the outrage it generates, then where are the protests of People? Once again, lying is a bad idea when the record is right there.

I'm not going to lower myself to treating you like you're acting mentally deficient. You know full well what I mean, so stop being disingenuous by trying to run down the debate with these pointless semantics. There is outrage over the glamorization of the bomber. If you do not understand that or know that, then you're ignorant of the OP and should leave the thread or cure yourself of said ignorance.

And what exactly is objectionable about that statement? Do you really think people's judgement gets markedly better when they're basing decisions on emotions in the middle of a mob frenzy?

There is nothing objectionable about the statement, which is why I repurposed it for my own use. :)

So stop dancing around it and actually define your position. What traits of this picture, exactly, are not neutral? What traits should we be looking for in a "neutral" picture that this one lacks?

I already gave you links to the neutral picture that would've been serviceable, and other possible options. But you're afraid neutrality will demonize the bomber.

Where did I ever utter the phrase "neutral environment"? Specific quote, please.

When you stated and thus implied that there are trials that take place without any preconceptions or 'pre-assumptions' (ie presumptions) of anything.

No, what I think is that a courtroom's context should be a presumption of innocence, and this is vital to anything resembling a fair trial.

And there will be.

You claim that you're okay with a presumption of guilt, and that you want a fair trial.

I never stated that there should be a presumption of guilt in a fair trial.

These are mutually exclusive; which do you reject?

I regret neither because I never made the statement you are implying. If you misinterpreted my statement, then I'm sorry.

This is not a response to the question I asked. There is nothing wrong with posting a neutral picture; my position, despite your attempt to misrepresent it, is that this picture is neutral. You cited mugshots as "more neutral", so getting back to the point: How is a mugshot neutral, given that it directly links the person to the crime and suggests that they are the best candidate for guilt?

I already gave several examples of more neutral pictures and other image suggestions that could be used. I'm not sure how the most commonly shown picture of him isn't neutral. What traits do you find disagreeable on it?

Please note: "best candidate" is a concept that is psychologically sticky.

Everything is psychologically sticky with you. ;)

Did I say it was, or did I say that nonprofit journalism exists - and thus the first responsibility of journalism cannot be to make money, as you claimed?

Well then don't waste my time. Rolling Stones is the magazine in question.

You have repeatedly acted like this is not a neutral picture, and like you'd presented a better alternative. You have failed to justify either of these positions.

I've presented several alternatives.

Really? Because a ctrl-F fails to find the phrase "more valuable" outside of this specific clause of the discussion - which started when you accused me of this. Yet another blatant lie.

You lord your opinion over the victims everytime you denounce any attempt at using a more neutral picture and ignoring the response the current one has received.

No, they are definitely victims. They are allegedly his victims. This distinction has been pointed out to you already. If you cannot even pretend to discuss this honestly and in good faith, why are you here?

Until the facts come out in the trial, we have no idea whose responsible for the alleged bombing. Everything else is just speculation.

As to your second point: This is why journalists tend not to be the people who are personally involved. We don't block publication because witnesses or victims say "Don't talk about this." In fact, there are specific laws in place in pretty much all of the Western world preventing us from doing so.

Which doesn't refute: Journalists aren't robots. Witnesses aren't robots and people with personal investment in stories tend to be sources of said stories and aren't robots either. Journalists get invested in stories all the time. Because they aren't robots. Your statements are a smokescreen for an illusion.

I haven't ignored it; you've failed to provide it. Lots of people claiming to speak for the victims, but that's all.

I've provided it and so has the OP. You just prefer to define victims into something you find more convenient to your POV.

"I would [show you a picture] if RS would let me" is a statement which is factually untrue, and which you know to be untrue. This is what we call a lie.

Rolling Stones will allow me to put a more appropriate picture on the cover of their magazine?

I care deeply for the victims. All of them. I just don't think that what you claim their opinion of an article is is valid grounds for censorship,

I'm not stating that Rolling Stones should be censored. I never have. So stop implying that I am.

or that this picture is particularly non-neutral.

The very existence of this thread seems to make it seem otherwise.

The standard of evidence varies, depending on whether the statements in question are about living people with rights. Funny, that.

So you ignore the victims? Interesting. I thought you cared. Nice to see teh double standard you have set up for yourself. Very admirable. So maybe only one Tsarnaev brother is guilty and the other is innocent. :D

A confession that was clearly given freely and without compulsion? Yeah, I generally take that as sufficient for media purposes, if not for a court of law. Now, just so we're clear, nothing after the horizontal line is directed at you.

Without compulsion? Can you define 'without compulsion?' When you do, I can make my actual rebuttal to this point. Either way, it's nice to see a slippery slope of logic that you're using in this regard. About what I expected.

[Oniya]

I never stated that there should be a presumption of guilt in a fair trial.

Well he is the guy that did it so I find no problem with that perception, unless some new evidence comes out that's dismissing the obvious. Either way it's immaterial since he'll be facing a trial which will prove what we already know, but in a rightly legal fashion.

Are you presuming innocence here?

[Beguile's Mistress]

And the publisher and editors at Rolling Stone are probably toasting each other over pizza and beer or something and laughing up a storm because they got what they wanted.  People are paying attention to them and talking about them and arguing over them.

I wonder if they even care what people think outside of the marketing polls that have helped them put out an issue that is selling and getting noticed. 

[Trieste]

And the publisher and editors at Rolling Stone are probably toasting each other over pizza and beer or something and laughing up a storm because they got what they wanted.  People are paying attention to them and talking about them and arguing over them.

I wonder if they even care what people think outside of the marketing polls that have helped them put out an issue that is selling and getting noticed.

It's quite possible that they are looking at the decline of print media and breathing a small sigh of relief that, at least for one more issue, they remain relevant. I, for one, am looking forward to reading the piece, and analyzing that instead of just a picture.

[Beguile's Mistress]

They have good writers and I'm looking forward to reading the article, too.  I seldom come away from an issue without a new angle or facet to examine on a story.

[Ephiral]

I'm not. I'm pointing out others do.

LIAR!

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

And I find the idea that using most any other picture of Tsarnaev would somehow be considered dubious reporting. I'm fairly certain there are other pictures of him they couldve chosen that werent as thoughtless. But they went with the most glamorous one so they can sell more magazines, which is fine. I'm not going to blame a media company for cashing in on a tragedy but no reason not to point out their callousness.

Exactly. Just use the surveillance image of him. Or some picture he didnt take for the purpose of looking glamorous. Just show one of him... normal. I'm assuming those exist. ;)

By showing a flattering or positive picture of him instead of a more neutral one.

Why do you continue to lie blatantly and obviously? More importantly, why do you reprehensibly hide behind the victims when asked to defend what you said?

So you can belittle then with vanilla descriptions like you've already been doing? I'm not falling for that tactic.

No, so "more neutral" actually has a definition that can be answered, and so that I might be able to see what is apparently so non-neutral about this picture. I'm not even sure what you mean by "vanilla descriptions" - I described exactly three pictures, of which three were completely inappropriate, and displayed the other two in-thread so you could see what I was talking about.

Stop ignoring the victims and furthermore trying to define who they are.

First, I'll point out that the clauses of this sentence, taken together, mean that we must consult literally every person before we publish anything. Second, I am not ignoring the opinions of the victims. You have failed to provide any actual statements of any victims - by your definition of victim, ie directly injured by the attacks, not mine - who claimed to be speaking for themselves.

I'm not going to lower myself to treating you like you're acting mentally deficient. You know full well what I mean, so stop being disingenuous by trying to run down the debate with these pointless semantics. There is outrage over the glamorization of the bomber. If you do not understand that or know that, then you're ignorant of the OP and should leave the thread or cure yourself of said ignorance.

No, I honestly do not. You said this was glamourizing him. I asked how. You said "By causing outrage." How would you rather I interpret this?

There is nothing objectionable about the statement, which is why I repurposed it for my own use. :)

...except you haven't used it in a single way that makes sense, if you support it.

I already gave you links to the neutral picture that would've been serviceable, and other possible options. But you're afraid neutrality will demonize the bomber.

...you didn't actually state which picture you would prefer, nor what makes it more neutral, despite repeated requests. You further claimed that looking at the search you provided - the "other possible options" - was a useless tangent. Which is it?

When you stated and thus implied that there are trials that take place without any preconceptions or 'pre-assumptions' (ie presumptions) of anything.

Quote me on this. I dare you to try. What I said is that they take place without presumption of guilt. If you want to be taken seriously, stop lying about matters of record.

And there will be.

Mmmmaybe. It's much more difficult to say than that, honestly, given the way the news went down on this. And frankly, even if it does, this does not change the fact that you claimed to support both a presumption of guilt and a fair trial. Which of these two mutually-exclusive statements do you stand behind, assuming you stand behind anything you say at all?

I never stated that there should be a presumption of guilt in a fair trial.

And yet again, we come back to:

Well he is the guy that did it so I find no problem with that perception, unless some new evidence comes out that's dismissing the obvious. Either way it's immaterial since he'll be facing a trial which will prove what we already know, but in a rightly legal fashion.

So you're okay with presuming his guilt.

I just stated he should be given a fair trial.

And you want him to have a fair trial. Presumption of guilt plus fair trial equals yes you very obviously did say that a fair trial can have a presumption of guilt, liar.

I regret neither because I never made the statement you are implying. If you misinterpreted my statement, then I'm sorry.

See disproof of this above. You explicitly stated both of these positions. Again, you lie.

I already gave several examples of more neutral pictures and other image suggestions that could be used. I'm not sure how the most commonly shown picture of him isn't neutral. What traits do you find disagreeable on it?

None especially, which is why I stated that I don't see how it is substantially different from the one they chose. What do you find substantially different?

Everything is psychologically sticky with you. ;)

Aaaaand ad hominem. Please refrain from this, in accordance with the forum rules.

Well then don't waste my time. Rolling Stones is the magazine in question.

Then don't make statements that you interpret as a waste of your time. If nonprofit journalism exists, the first responsibility of journalists is not to make money.

I've presented several alternatives.

And then shot down an attempt to examine them.

You lord your opinion over the victims everytime you denounce any attempt at using a more neutral picture and ignoring the response the current one has received.

First, I have not denounced using a more neutral picture. I have asked how the existing one is not neutral. You have failed to respond.

Second, I did not claim that my opinion is in any way more valuable than the victims, and I again challenge you to quote me saying otherwise lest the statement I quoted be proven for the lie it is.

Third, you have not actually shown that the victims feel this way, by your definition of "victim".

Until the facts come out in the trial, we have no idea whose responsible for the alleged bombing. Everything else is just speculation.

We have an idea, which is why someone is being chsarged with it. We are uncertain as to the truth-value of this idea. Whether it is or is not accurate, the bombing did happen. It is not an "alleged" bombing, there are no "alleged" victims (only real ones), and your attempt to claim otherwise is cheapening their suffering in a poor attempt to score rhetorical points.

Which doesn't refute: Journalists aren't robots. Witnesses aren't robots and people with personal investment in stories tend to be sources of said stories and aren't robots either. Journalists get invested in stories all the time. Because they aren't robots. Your statements are a smokescreen for an illusion.

Journalists getting excessively involved with a story leads to distorted stories - which means it tends to be bad journalism.

I've provided it and so has the OP. You just prefer to define victims into something you find more convenient to your POV.

Which of the following people was a victim (remembering that you defined victim as "someone who was shot and had their legs blown off") speaking for him or herself: Thomas Menino? Katlyn Townsend? Ty Burr? Richard Donohue? (Hint: Read Donohue's statement very carefully.)

Rolling Stones will allow me to put a more appropriate picture on the cover of their magazine?

That is not what I asked you to do. I asked you to show me a "more neutral" picture. You said you would if Rolling Stone would let you. This was a lie, because Rolling Stone was not preventing you from showing me anything.

I'm not stating that Rolling Stones should be censored. I never have. So stop implying that I am.

You are saying that Rolling Stone should be unable to publish as they wish based on the dictums of an outside party. This is censorship. So I'll state outright that you are advocating censorship.

The very existence of this thread seems to make it seem otherwise.

It would if anybody in this thread had at any point indicated what makes it non-neutral.

So you ignore the victims? Interesting. I thought you cared. Nice to see teh double standard you have set up for yourself. Very admirable. So maybe only one Tsarnaev brother is guilty and the other is innocent. :D

I do not ignore the victims, but their alleged opinion is not the determining factor in what is and is not an appropriate statement for a media source to make about a suspect in an ongoing investigation or trial.

Which, by the way, is the other key point missed in your Time example - there was no ongoing investigation or trial to ascertain the identities of the perpetrators, was there?

Without compulsion? Can you define 'without compulsion?' When you do, I can make my actual rebuttal to this point. Either way, it's nice to see a slippery slope of logic that you're using in this regard. About what I expected.

Without being compelled by authorities, by force, coercion, or deal-making, to make that statement. Note that this does not mean that such a confession is accurate, just that it opens the person in question up to accusations in public discourse.

[Kythia]

I must just say that if a discussion has got to the stage where two parties can't agree on a single sentence then it might be the case that the difference in views is so fundamental that it can't be resolved, or at least not in this matter.

Which is why I move that this should be changed to a wrestling match to submission.  Possibly involving some sort of foam, as well.

Oil up.

[Trieste]

I must just say that if a discussion has got to the stage where two parties can't agree on a single sentence then it might be the case that the difference in views is so fundamental that it can't be resolved, or at least not in this matter.

Which is why I move that this should be changed to a wrestling match to submission.  Possibly involving some sort of foam, as well.

Oil up.

Seconded.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Adds my vote, too.  Do we have a fourth?

My scrolling finger is cramping up.

[Ephiral]

Fine, fine, I'll do it. But you ladies are paying my cleaning bills and medical expenses incurred in the line of duty.

[Neysha]

Fine, fine, I'll do it. But you ladies are paying my cleaning bills and medical expenses incurred in the line of duty.

I will be sure to incur many!  >:)

[Cyrano Johnson]

Trial by oil wrestling is an idea whose time has clearly come.

[Neysha]

LIAR!

Why do you continue to lie blatantly and obviously? More importantly, why do you reprehensibly hide behind the victims when asked to defend what you said?

Oh stop being silly. You've once again ignored the obvious and repeated context of the situation. Like I've stated repeatedly, I have no issue with them glamorizing the bomber. I just wish they would've shown some sensitivity to the victims.

No, so "more neutral" actually has a definition that can be answered, and so that I might be able to see what is apparently so non-neutral about this picture. I'm not even sure what you mean by "vanilla descriptions" - I described exactly three pictures, of which three were completely inappropriate, and displayed the other two in-thread so you could see what I was talking about.

You already posted the more neutral picture that was perfectly acceptable but your vanilla generalizations are unable to discern that widely publicized image as any different from the one used on the Rolling Stones cover.

First, I'll point out that the clauses of this sentence, taken together, mean that we must consult literally every person before we publish anything.

You wanted to start sliding the slippery slope, I'm merely pushing us along. I'd hate for the media to do anything presumptious and lose its integrity for purposes of efficiency.

Second, I am not ignoring the opinions of the victims. You have failed to provide any actual statements of any victims - by your definition of victim, ie directly injured by the attacks, not mine - who claimed to be speaking for themselves.

I don't recall making that definition. I recall posting an article and then someone else trying to pigeonhole what a victim should or should not be in an effort to discredit my article link.

No, I honestly do not. You said this was glamourizing him. I asked how. You said "By causing outrage." How would you rather I interpret this?

Well you can start by not acting dishonest when you're responding to me with your utterly asinine metaphor in relation to outrage being caused by entertainment magazines. Again, if you are too ignorant or too stupid to recognize outrage has been caused by the apparent glamorizing of the bomber, then this discussion is a non-starter.

...except you haven't used it in a single way that makes sense, if you support it.

Your disagreement doesn't make it untrue.

...you didn't actually state which picture you would prefer, nor what makes it more neutral, despite repeated requests. You further claimed that looking at the search you provided - the "other possible options" - was a useless tangent. Which is it?

Like I said before I stated it initially and also offered other options when I referenced Google and Wikipedia for appropriate images.

Quote me on this. I dare you to try. What I said is that they take place without presumption of guilt. If you want to be taken seriously, stop lying about matters of record.

Yes you wanted some magical world where there are no presumptions... ie pre-assumptions. I informed you correctly that such magical worlds do not exist... that we know of.

Mmmmaybe. It's much more difficult to say than that, honestly, given the way the news went down on this.

Whelp, then I guess it's pointless to whine about the Rolling Stone cover then beyond internet tage.

And frankly, even if it does, this does not change the fact that you claimed to support both a presumption of guilt and a fair trial.

I support a fair trial and I believe he is guilty because it seems obvious. They are not mutually exclusive unless I'm selected as a juror or judge or prosecutor. Which I am not.

Which of these two mutually-exclusive statements do you stand behind, assuming you stand behind anything you say at all?

Your false dilemmas bore me.

And yet again, we come back to:
So you're okay with presuming his guilt.

A personal belief.

Which is immaterial to the Rolling Stones cover which is accused of glamorizing the bomber.

And you want him to have a fair trial.

Which is immaterial to the Rolling Stones cover which is accused of glamorizing the bomber.

Presumption of guilt plus fair trial equals yes you very obviously did say that a fair trial can have a presumption of guilt, liar.

Nope, you're editorializing what I'm saying. Because you're dishonest.

See disproof of this above. You explicitly stated both of these positions. Again, you lie.

Off topic editorialization.

None especially, which is why I stated that I don't see how it is substantially different from the one they chose. What do you find substantially different?

Excellent, then why not use the other more popularized picture if there is no problem, if only to mitigate the grief of the victims you allegedly care about.

Aaaaand ad hominem. Please refrain from this, in accordance with the forum rules.

Sayeth the hypocrite.

Then don't make statements that you interpret as a waste of your time.

My statement was in response to one of your worthless questions.

If nonprofit journalism exists, the first responsibility of journalists is not to make money.

Rolling Stones isn't a nonprofit magazine last I checked.

And then shot down an attempt to examine them.

Yes you did.

First, I have not denounced using a more neutral picture. I have asked how the existing one is not neutral. You have failed to respond.

It's self evident from the reaction to the Rolling Stones cover picture that it doesn't appear to be neutral, even if you think it is.

Second, I did not claim that my opinion is in any way more valuable than the victims, and I again challenge you to quote me saying otherwise lest the statement I quoted be proven for the lie it is.

It's not a lie. You've consistently shown you value your opinion on the Rolling Stones picture as not glamorizing the victim as many of the victims have stated it has.

Third, you have not actually shown that the victims feel this way, by your definition of "victim".

It was shown in the OP which was reporting the outrage and in a link I posted later from Time Magazine.

We have an idea, which is why someone is being chsarged with it. We are uncertain as to the truth-value of this idea. Whether it is or is not accurate, the bombing did happen. It is not an "alleged" bombing, there are no "alleged" victims (only real ones), and your attempt to claim otherwise is cheapening their suffering in a poor attempt to score rhetorical points.

The bombing did happen obviously. But calling it a bombing implies that Tsarnaev, the only surviving suspect, is a criminal so I'd wish to avoid smearing him by stating it's a bombing. Maybe we can call it an probable incident instead out of sensitivity to the victims and to maintain a presumption of innocence when the trial occurs.

Journalists getting excessively involved with a story leads to distorted stories - which means it tends to be bad journalism.

Obviously. But it happens.

Which of the following people was a victim (remembering that you defined victim as "someone who was shot and had their legs blown off") speaking for him or herself: Thomas Menino? Katlyn Townsend? Ty Burr? Richard Donohue? (Hint: Read Donohue's statement very carefully.)

It depends. They are all victims to certain degree, just like Ephiral was. And I didn't define a victim as just as those two incidents, the lady I was discussing the issue was and I clarified so if you have issue with that definition, take it up with her. I'd rather not pigeonhole definitions of victims, but it's obvious that social medias unrest over this issue wasn't created in a vacuum. You can just follow the OP links or google any combination of "Rolling Stones Cover" "Tsarnaev" "Bob Dylan" "Glamorizing" "Outrage" and "Victims" etc.

That is not what I asked you to do. I asked you to show me a "more neutral" picture. You said you would if Rolling Stone would let you. This was a lie, because Rolling Stone was not preventing you from showing me anything.

Rolling Stones has never allowed me to place a picture on the cover of the magazine, which is the only thing that matters as that is what this topic is about. And stop whining about it already, I already stated pictures and suggested alternatives I would find more appropriate.

Like I stated originally (in the same post where I provided the links to images and suggested alternatives) "I will if Rolling Stones allowed me too, but accessing Google and Wikipedia and then putting it on the Rolling Stones magazine cover would be hard for me."

Thanks for not listening.

You are saying that Rolling Stone should be unable to publish as they wish based on the dictums of an outside party. This is censorship. So I'll state outright that you are advocating censorship.

Then you're a liar because I never wanted to censor Rolling Stones.

LIAR!

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

Very decisive statement there. :p

And I find the idea that using most any other picture of Tsarnaev would somehow be considered dubious reporting. I'm fairly certain there are other pictures of him they couldve chosen that werent as thoughtless. But they went with the most glamorous one so they can sell more magazines, which is fine. I'm not going to blame a media company for cashing in on a tragedy but no reason not to point out their callousness.

Oh yeah, look at me demanding their censorship as opposed to sensitivity.

I find no problem with the unedited Newsweek mugshot of OJ Simpson. I have no problem with Bin Laden on the cover of Time. I might have a problem with, if during the OJ trial they instead showed a picture of OJ receiving his Heisman or scoring a touchdown or otherwise being celebratory. Not a big deal... but id be irked that no regard was given to the victims.

But like I stated before, it's not something I would get angry over and I don't fault Rolling Stones for capitalizing on selling magazines, but it's apparently insensitive to the victims so I'm irked that they don't seem to care.

I never stated they shouldn't of put him on the cover. The Boston Marathon bombing is definitely worthy of a cover story.

And used a picture many people and victims feel is glamorizing him instead of a more neutral one. I have no problem with the article. I'm sure it's an amazing one and can probably stand on its own merit regardless of the controversy.

as I've stated repeatedly I'm not torn over (or angry) by this Rolling Stones cover. I merely wish to make known the POV of the victims that you and others have ignored.

I'm not stating that Rolling Stones should be censored. I never have. So stop implying that I am.

...Yawn...

It would if anybody in this thread had at any point indicated what makes it non-neutral.

The fact your ignorant of the outrage it has caused speaks volumes as to your standards of neutrality. Again, why is your opinion on the picture more valid then those of the people upset by it?

I do not ignore the victims, but their alleged opinion is not the determining factor in what is and is not an appropriate statement for a media source to make about a suspect in an ongoing investigation or trial.

So you're ignoring them with mild justification. Fair enough. As long as you're happy selling more magazines because many victims and others feel the picture is glamorizing the bomber then that's fine. Just admit it like Rolling Stones hasn't.

Which, by the way, is the other key point missed in your Time example - there was no ongoing investigation or trial to ascertain the identities of the perpetrators, was there?

Clearly a miscarriage of justice then which you oddly and hypocritically don't have a problem with.

Without being compelled by authorities, by force, coercion, or deal-making, to make that statement.

What nature of authorities and what forms of coercion?

Note that this does not mean that such a confession is accurate, just that it opens the person in question up to accusations in public discourse.

Oh great a qualifier to make what you said meaningless. Excellent. So it is 'alleged' for Bin Laden and the Colombine shooters then?

[Cyrano Johnson]

Drat. That's not oil wrestling. Maybe there's confusion about whether rhetorical slipperiness counts?

I was at least hoping for a post that said "AAAAAAND SUPLEX!" Quel dommage.

[gaggedLouise]

As a politician from around here put it: "We don't want to grind this over the long bench" ('long bench' is an old-style process law term, and no, he didn't mention using oil either, not even lubricant oil)  ::)

[Cyrano Johnson]

and no, he didn't mention using oil either, not even lubricant oil

Men are such bastards...  ;)

[Skynet]

And the publisher and editors at Rolling Stone are probably toasting each other over pizza and beer or something and laughing up a storm because they got what they wanted.  People are paying attention to them and talking about them and arguing over them.

I wonder if they even care what people think outside of the marketing polls that have helped them put out an issue that is selling and getting noticed.

But stores are already refusing to carry their magazines, such as 7-11, so if anything this probably backfired on them.

[Ephiral]

AAAAAAND SUPLEX!

Oh stop being silly. You've once again ignored the obvious and repeated context of the situation. Like I've stated repeatedly, I have no issue with them glamorizing the bomber. I just wish they would've shown some sensitivity to the victims.

Funny thing: People can click on the quote tags above the text to be taken to the post and see that you were not even mentioning the victims in those posts. At all.

You already posted the more neutral picture that was perfectly acceptable but your vanilla generalizations are unable to discern that widely publicized image as any different from the one used on the Rolling Stones cover.

So please educate me.

You wanted to start sliding the slippery slope, I'm merely pushing us along. I'd hate for the media to do anything presumptious and lose its integrity for purposes of efficiency.

Um, no. You're the one who said that they shouldn't publish things which offend the victims. I've been arguing the opposite.

I don't recall making that definition. I recall posting an article and then someone else trying to pigeonhole what a victim should or should not be in an effort to discredit my article link.

Why does agreeing with popular sentiment make you come across as self-congratulatory? The world may never know.

If your linked article defines what a victim is, then I fall squarely under the umbrella of a victim.

It must've been painful when you were shot and had your legs blown off.

Well you can start by not acting dishonest when you're responding to me with your utterly asinine metaphor in relation to outrage being caused by entertainment magazines. Again, if you are too ignorant or too stupid to recognize outrage has been caused by the apparent glamorizing of the bomber, then this discussion is a non-starter.

Sure, outrage has happened. But outrage does not define glamorization, which is what you claimed.

Like I said before I stated it initially and also offered other options when I referenced Google and Wikipedia for appropriate images.

Your initial statement:

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

Your response to someone actually looking at your Google reference, which was in no way presented as less valid than the Wikipedia link:

Maybe if you read my post and followed the Wikipedia link you would've found out which picture I was referring to instead of meandering on one of your reckless tangents meant to smear me for the crime of innocuously asking "why not use a less flattering picture of him?"

Good job. I was impressed that you missed my point.

I support a fair trial and I believe he is guilty because it seems obvious. They are not mutually exclusive unless I'm selected as a juror or judge or prosecutor. Which I am not.

Did you say you have no problem seeing him as guilty, or with public perception of guilt? Did you say that you know he is guilty, or that we do? Here's a hint:

Well he is the guy that did it so I find no problem with that perception, unless some new evidence comes out that's dismissing the obvious. Either way it's immaterial since he'll be facing a trial which will prove what we already know, but in a rightly legal fashion.

Which is immaterial to the Rolling Stones cover which is accused of glamorizing the bomber.
Which is immaterial to the Rolling Stones cover which is accused of glamorizing the bomber.

But very material to whether you are arguing honestly and in good faith. Why did you bring it up if it's irrelevant?

Nope, you're editorializing what I'm saying. Because you're dishonest.

You said you are okay with a presumption of guilt. You said you wanted a fair trial. I'm not going to bother linking these a third time; instead I'll cut to the chase:


For the record, note how when I accuse you of lying, it's once I've shown that you said something, then claimed you did not say it, or claimed that I said something I did not say. That's called "proof", and why it isn't hugely laughable when I do it.

Excellent, then why not use the other more popularized picture if there is no problem, if only to mitigate the grief of the victims you allegedly care about.

I still don't see what necessitates the change. Note that you still haven't provided a victim statement, for any useful definition of victim (let alone the definition you imposed - see above).

Sayeth the hypocrite.

It is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem attack, to provide proof that someone has knowingly made false statements next to an accusation of making false statements. If I have called you anything other than a liar, please quote it.

Rolling Stones isn't a nonprofit magazine last I checked.

Do... do you not understand how proof or logic work? You claimed that the primary responsibility of journalists is to make money. The existence of nonprofit journalism proves this false, and thus calls into question your assumption that the picture was selected with nothing but profit in mind.

Yes you did.

You claim that I shot down an attempt to examine the Google image result. By being the only one to examine the Google image result.

It's self evident from the reaction to the Rolling Stones cover picture that it doesn't appear to be neutral, even if you think it is.

No, it is self-evident that it does not appear to be neutral to some parties. I have asked one party who espoused this opinion why it appears non-neutral, and have been met with lies and evasion in return, and still no answer to the question.

It's not a lie. You've consistently shown you value your opinion on the Rolling Stones picture as not glamorizing the victim as many of the victims have stated it has.

This is a proof that my opinion conflicts with others' opinions, not that I consider mine more valid. I'll gladly change my opinion if I can be shown some factor I missed. I think you know what's coming next:

It was shown in the OP which was reporting the outrage and in a link I posted later from Time Magazine.

Yet again, which of the four speakers in your link was speaking for themselves and

[...was] shot and had [their] legs blown off.

?

Obviously. But it happens.

And journalists are the ones who decide what goes to print, right?

It depends. They are all victims to certain degree, just like Ephiral was. And I didn't define a victim as just as those two incidents, the lady I was discussing the issue was and I clarified so if you have issue with that definition, take it up with her. I'd rather not pigeonhole definitions of victims, but it's obvious that social medias unrest over this issue wasn't created in a vacuum. You can just follow the OP links or google any combination of "Rolling Stones Cover" "Tsarnaev" "Bob Dylan" "Glamorizing" "Outrage" and "Victims" etc.

First, I am not a victim. Do not speak for me again. Second, no. Per the rules of this forum, it is your responsibility to substantiate and defend your statements. Third, re the bolded part:

Why does agreeing with popular sentiment make you come across as self-congratulatory? The world may never know.

If your linked article defines what a victim is, then I fall squarely under the umbrella of a victim.

It must've been painful when you were shot and had your legs blown off.

Rolling Stones has never allowed me to place a picture on the cover of the magazine, which is the only thing that matters as that is what this topic is about. And stop whining about it already, I already stated pictures and suggested alternatives I would find more appropriate.

Whether or not a "more neutral" picture exists is absolutely relevant to the topic. By failing to define "more neutral", you have yet to make the case that one does. I'll stop calling attention to your lies the moment you stop lying. Once again, the exchange was:

You want one of him looking "normal"? Find something more normal than that, please.

I will if Rolling Stones allowed me too, but accessing Google and Wikipedia and then putting it on the Rolling Stones magazine cover would be hard for me.

Like I stated originally (in the same post where I provided the links to images and suggested alternatives) "I will if Rolling Stones allowed me too, but accessing Google and Wikipedia and then putting it on the Rolling Stones magazine cover would be hard for me."

Look at the statement you were responding to. Rolling Stone was not preventing you from finding a more "normal" picture. So again you are a

Then you're a liar because I never wanted to censor Rolling Stones.

Perhaps I misunderstood. So you think they should use this cover image if they so choose, regardless of what any third party might say about it? If so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I retract and repudiate any and all accusations that you are pro-censorship.

The fact your ignorant of the outrage it has caused speaks volumes as to your standards of neutrality. Again, why is your opinion on the picture more valid then those of the people upset by it?

I am not ignorant of the outrage; I do not see the justification for the outrage. Again, my opinion is not more valid than others', which is why I will change it if I can see a way that this picture is "glamorous".

So you're ignoring them with mild justification. Fair enough. As long as you're happy selling more magazines because many victims and others feel the picture is glamorizing the bomber then that's fine. Just admit it like Rolling Stones hasn't.

Not ignoring them, just not letting their influence dictate the terms of the conversation. There's a difference. Not being in the entertainment or sales industry, I don't care about selling shit; my position is and always has been "This doesn't look particularly glamorous. What makes it so, in dissenting opinions? What better alternatives are there that remain neutral, and why are they better?"

Clearly a miscarriage of justice then which you oddly and hypocritically don't have a problem with.

Hardly a miscarriage of justice - we knew who the perpetrators were because numerous survivors saw them with guns in hand, shooting people. Further, they were kinda too dead to care, so failing to maintain the presumption of innocence no longer violated their right to a fair trial. Is there an eyewitness account or any footage of the Tsarnaev brothers actually planting bombs? If so, I am unaware of it.

What nature of authorities and what forms of coercion?

Any and all authorities who stand in an adversarial position to the confessor and would profit from a confession, and any and all forms of coercion as the term is commonly defined in the English language.

Oh great a qualifier to make what you said meaningless. Excellent. So it is 'alleged' for Bin Laden and the Colombine shooters then?

Are either one of them going to stand trial, and thus in need of a presumption of innocence, lest their right to a fair trial be breached? No? Are they around to sue media sources for libel or slander? No? Is there evidence pointing toward their guilt, far above and beyond that of any other possible culprit? Yes? Well, then, "alleged" is unnecessary.

EDIT: At this point, I've seen pretty clearly and demonstrated pretty thoroughly to the audience that you have shown no interest in good faith or honesty. Unless this changes significantly, I'm done with making new statements to you. I will, however, continue to provide documentary evidence of your lies accompanied by the Princess Bride gif should you continue to lie, because lies should not stand unchallenged and because Princess Bride rocks my world.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Given that there are clearly no porny "Ultimate Surrender" GIFS in our future -- though I'll grant that Princess Bride GIF is still pretty funny -- I have a fresh suggestion: that the remainder of this battle be fought entirely in LOLCATS.

That way, at least the rest of us still get some pussy*.

[* I know, MAXIMUM GROAN. But fuck it... I stand by it!]

[Beguile's Mistress]

But stores are already refusing to carry their magazines, such as 7-11, so if anything this probably backfired on them.

They are but it's just publicity.  People who want it will go elsewhere.  The fallout is that people will remember "Rolling Stone" and the issues about the issue.  Besides I know at least one store that pulled the publication because they were threatened with violence and vandalism if they didn't.  It's a store near here that is owned by a Pakistani family.  My neighbor's kids came home terrified because people are assholes and terrorists.

Given that there are clearly no porny "Ultimate Surrender" GIFS in our future -- though I'll grant that Princess Bride GIF is still pretty funny -- I have a fresh suggestion: that the remainder of this battle be fought entirely in LOLCATS.

That way, at least the rest of us still get some pussy*.

[* I know, MAXIMUM GROAN. But fuck it... I stand by it!]

I approve LOLcats.  They are concise and easy to read and not boring.

[Kythia]

Given that there are clearly no porny "Ultimate Surrender" GIFS in our future -- though I'll grant that Princess Bride GIF is still pretty funny -- I have a fresh suggestion: that the remainder of this battle be fought entirely in LOLCATS.

That way, at least the rest of us still get some pussy*.

[* I know, MAXIMUM GROAN. But fuck it... I stand by it!]

I hardly need point out that there are no LOLCOCKERELS.  Man, I'm oppressed by the patriarchy.

[gaggedLouise]

I hardly need point out that there are no LOLCOCKERELS.  Man, I'm oppressed by the patriarchy.

How about Lolspaniels?