Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover

[Question Mark]

So apparently the American social media found yet another thing to whinge about: the most recent Rolling Stone publication has the Boston Marathon bomber suspect on the front page.  From the cover and the story, it seems to be a mini-bio and editorial on Tsarnaev's (alleged) path to terrorism, although I have not read the article myself.

It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, just another magazine.  However, people -- both big name celebrities and the common person  -- are setting the Twitters and Facebooks on fire with complaints about how Rolling Stone is classless, inciteful, and stupid.

I don't get it.  Rolling Stone did a big story on the Boston Marathon bomber.  So what?  And even if you did think it was tasteless, why go online and bitch about it?  Vote with your wallet.

I don't know, it's just been gnawing at me all day.  I'm sick and fucking tired of people being offended at every little thing, and feeling like they have the right to make the offender change their ways as a result.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I think the problem here is that you don't want to glorify the man and accidentally encourage others to do the same. Yes, that sounds a little retarded and like someone old people would say. Well, I'm old, so I'll say it.  Regardless of what the actual article says, by putting this guy on the cover of Rolling Stones, you are making him famous.

When I was a teen I would have rolled my eyes If I head someone say this. I know better now.

[Question Mark]

I think the problem here is that you don't want to glorify the man and accidentally encourage others to do the same. Yes, that sounds a little retarded and like someone old people would say. Well, I'm old, so I'll say it.  Regardless of what the actual article says, by putting this guy on the cover of Rolling Stones, you are making him famous.

When I was a teen I would have rolled my eyes If I head someone say this. I know better now.

But he's already famous (well, infamous), and only an idiot would think that Rolling Stone is glorifying him.  I think people are rightfully still a bit sore after the bombings, and since it's been a while since the last terrorist attack, they were getting all riled up into their patriotic, AMERICA STRONK attitudes, and this "controversy" is stirring up some of those still-smoldering passions months after the attack.

People in comfortable lives are always looking for something to bitch about and to blame for all of the decay in the world, and this suits both purposes.

[Driskoll]

I do agree with the article you provided in some respects, as the photo of Tsarnaev does kind of make him look like a rock star. Even if they are not intentionally glorifying him, he is now getting more attention for committing a truly disgusting act. I can see why people who regularly read the magazine would be mad to see his face on it all of the sudden. This isn't the first time the magazine has done something like this though, the other instance being a cover page featuring Charles Manson. (OJ Simpson doesn't count, as that cover was done well before the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman occurred).

[Evil Tim]

From what I understand about this certain topic, the reason people are upset is because Dzhokhar is cast in a sympathetic light in the article, like he himself was a victim.  I can't really put anything else in on it, but me personally I think it was kind of an odd choice for them to use a photo that almost makes him look like James Franco.  I know they have to sell magazines just on cover value alone but they had to know this was going to stir the pot.  Maybe that's what they were counting on.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well I am split.

I get why they are doing it. Ultimately, to sell mags.

But I think that they are trying to bring home one point. Till the jury is is.. he has the presumption of innocence.

You don't back the people like Marissa Alexander who presents a sympathetic victim getting hammered for an extreme sentence when a much lesser charge should have been brought in against her. You have to cover the odious and obnoxious along with the innocent appearing.

Just like the American Nazi's march in Skoie, Ill was defended to protect everyone's right to assemble.

You don't have to like it.. but till the Jury foreman reads the verdict.. he's presumed innocent till you prove otherwise.

Journalists have a great responsibility to consider that than the layman.

[Question Mark]

Well I am split.

I get why they are doing it. Ultimately, to sell mags.

But I think that they are trying to bring home one point. Till the jury is is.. he has the presumption of innocence.

You don't back the people like Marissa Alexander who presents a sympathetic victim getting hammered for an extreme sentence when a much lesser charge should have been brought in against her. You have to cover the odious and obnoxious along with the innocent appearing.

Just like the American Nazi's march in Skoie, Ill was defended to protect everyone's right to assemble.

You don't have to like it.. but till the Jury foreman reads the verdict.. he's presumed innocent till you prove otherwise.

Journalists have a great responsibility to consider that than the layman.

Pretty much agree with everything here.

RS has a duty to sell its mags, and if they do it in a way that offends a bunch of people, well, that's their prerogative.

However, it is important to remember that Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty, like any other American accused of crimes.

[Callie Del Noire]

Pretty much agree with everything here.

RS has a duty to sell its mags, and if they do it in a way that offends a bunch of people, well, that's their prerogative.

However, it is important to remember that Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty, like any other American accused of crimes.

Unfortunately, since 9/11, I've see more and more 'rule of fear' and less and less 'rule of law' in the public media, government actions and public opinion. The first two shape the later and the later guides the direction of the first two. That leads to a viscous circle that only makes things more and more dire if we don't respect our own laws.

And in so doing..we let Terrorists 'win'.

But what do I know? I was called a 'pinko' for saying that we shouldn't let 9/11 guide us into an atrocity like the Patriot Act.

[Ephiral]

And in so doing..we let Terrorists 'win'.

But what do I know? I was called a 'pinko' for saying that we shouldn't let 9/11 guide us into an atrocity like the Patriot Act.

Wiser people than me have said it before: Don't want the terrorists to win? Stop being terrorized. It doesn't matter how many bombs they set off, how many people they kill. If your reaction is to clean up, mourn, rebuild, and go about your business, they have lost.

Especially since, y'know, they are explicitly engaging in asymmetric economic warfare.

[Oniya]

They are also hardly the first magazine to be accused of 'glorifying' someone by putting them on the cover.  Time Magazine has had several 'Man of the Year' issues that fall into that category.  It's on the newsstands for a while, and then we move on.

[Neysha]

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Media history provides many examples of covers featuring monsters.  It is done to sell magazines, videos, movies, and advertising for television programs.

There is a lesson to be learned with that cover and the story inside.  The face of evil is not always one with reptilian eyes and fangs dripping with blood.  The face of evil can look innocent and handsome.  It can hide the monster underneath. 

[Callie Del Noire]

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

Comes back to to Presumption of Innocence. You don't put the perp's booking photo up or the picture of him being hauled up the courtyard steps in chains and the yellow jump suit.

That was what the cover was trying to do. Show the person with a 'glamour shot' not a picture that makes you instantly say 'that's a scumbag'.

Personally.. I dislike the idea of the kid as a cover image.. but it's not my call. It's the editor and the publishers' call.

[Trieste]

Sure, they could have chosen a less flattering picture, but they didn't need to. The picture humanizes him, and reminds us that looks aren't everything. I was deeply affected by the Marathon bombing, and still feel the echoes of it. However, it behooves me and others like me to remember that there isn't a 'face of evil', per se.

Plus, it does touch on the fact that he is innocent until and unless the prosecution can prove his guilt.

[Callie Del Noire]

Sure, they could have chosen a less flattering picture, but they didn't need to. The picture humanizes him, and reminds us that looks aren't everything. I was deeply affected by the Marathon bombing, and still feel the echoes of it. However, it behooves me and others like me to remember that there isn't a 'face of evil', per se.

Plus, it does touch on the fact that he is innocent until and unless the prosecution can prove his guilt.

And that is why I support RS doing it.. or to quote Voltaire: 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'

I heard that a long long time ago, I think the first time was in a documentary on the Nazi party's attempt to march in Skoie. It never really hit till I enlisted and it was a quote put out in one of our leadership classes. We, the military, don't set policy.. or shouldn't, we simply must obey lawful orders and respect the constitution and bill of rights.

Of course I've always been of a more 'free' outlook than 'regulation' outlook. My take on the last decade and change is we've let too much fear rule us, but then my first direct experience with a terror act was almost three decades before most of Americas.

[Ephiral]

When public discourse is already so incredibly heavily-biased against someone, it strikes me as a failure of journalistic integrity to not present the other side. As-is, I honestly don't see how it's even remotely possible that his trial will be fair.

Also, it's, y'know, Rolling Stone. "Make this guy look like a rock star" is their house style.

The lesson I'm taking away from all of this: Despite the vast amount of bitching, most people's problem isn't that the media are biased. It's that they're not biased in ways the speaker likes.

[Callie Del Noire]

Agreed Ephiral, and I think that RS has a history of bringing out things in way that angers folks, because they hope that when the 'you fuckers' screaming moment is done the folks they CAN reach will think about it. Consider what they did, what they wrote about and start thinking.

Some folks can't be reached.. but some of the folks that get pissed off will cool down and consider things. And will think afterwards.

I admit some of the most interesting reads in articles that got me thinking weren't always from Time, Newsweek, or such but from mags like RS (and yes..even playboy) that I don't buy and read religously. Some of Hunter Thompson articles got me thinking. Didn't agree with what he said anymore than I did with some of the things I read in Malcolm X's 20 questions interview in Playboy.. but they gave me a differing viewpoint. Even more interesting was Arafat's interview.

[Oniya]

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

That worked so well for Time Magazine, after all.

[Retribution]

I agree with what has been posted here as I ponder it. Though I do rather prefer the way John Lennon's killer has been handled. As Sir Paul refers to him as "he who shall not be named" it is talked about but there is a camp that refuses to utter his name. I am not sure that really has any effect especially with this type of crime that was ostensibly not done for the notoriety as opposed to say John Hinckley who listed trying to catch the attention of Jody Foster as his motive.

Rolling Stone certainly has the right to put whoever they like on the cover and depict them in whatever light they wish. I just always wonder how many of these mass killers commit crimes in a large part for their fifteen minutes. But as well covered as the world is today they are going to get their fifteen no matter if they are on the cover of a magazine or not.

[Neysha]

That worked so well for Time Magazine, after all.

I don't see how they're applicable comparisons.

From your article, it didn't report much fallout from Newsweeks similar but less racist mugshot.

[Oniya]

Time magazine went with the 'deliberately make it look worse' angle and got lambasted for it.  Newsweek just printed the picture without modification with no fall-out.  If RS had gone and used a picture intending to make him 'not look good', they'd be doing the same sort of dubious reporting.

[Neysha]

Time magazine went with the 'deliberately make it look worse' angle and got lambasted for it.  Newsweek just printed the picture without modification with no fall-out.  If RS had gone and used a picture intending to make him 'not look good', they'd be doing the same sort of dubious reporting.

I don't think the Newsweek cover was flattering either of OJ Simpson.

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.

[Ephiral]

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.

I... sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you here. You seem to be saying that anything that can paint him in a sympathetic light is obviously the product of thoughtless callousness, and that a more reasonable approach would be to continue to demonize him.

This is the exact same logic which brought us "They hate our freedoms!". Popular ideas don't need defending. I am quite sure that a lot of thought was put into their choce of cover photo, and they went with one that was in keeping with both the house style and the article's (alleged; I haven't read it) stance that he was essentially a kid who got some screwed up ideas in his head and made a tragic decision because of it, not an evil monster.

He is a human being, and one who has not yet been found guilty of any crime. What good can it possibly do to treat him as an evil mutant who obviously just wanted to destroy everything we hold dear for the sake of destruction?

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't think the Newsweek cover was flattering either of OJ Simpson.

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.

Thing is.. they didn't EDIT it. It's like the photo that TV guide did a LOOONG time ago of Oprah during her 'diet success' phase. It wasn't her body and they took it into the shorts for trying.

[Neysha]

I... sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you here. You seem to be saying that anything that can paint him in a sympathetic light is obviously the product of thoughtless callousness, and that a more reasonable approach would be to continue to demonize him.

This is the exact same logic which brought us "They hate our freedoms!". Popular ideas don't need defending. I am quite sure that a lot of thought was put into their choce of cover photo, and they went with one that was in keeping with both the house style and the article's (alleged; I haven't read it) stance that he was essentially a kid who got some screwed up ideas in his head and made a tragic decision because of it, not an evil monster.

He is a human being, and one who has not yet been found guilty of any crime. What good can it possibly do to treat him as an evil mutant who obviously just wanted to destroy everything we hold dear for the sake of destruction?

I'm not even going to dignify this with a rebuttal. It seems so out of left field it baffles me.

How my suggestion of using another picture of him somehow leads to your response... I have no idea.

Again to reiterate... 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.

[Driskoll]

I... sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you here. You seem to be saying that anything that can paint him in a sympathetic light is obviously the product of thoughtless callousness, and that a more reasonable approach would be to continue to demonize him.

Yes, because if we're not glamorizing him we must demonize him. Those are our only two options after all.

Or another more neutral picture could be used, one that doesn't show him in handcuffs or make him look like a celebrity. Better yet, RS could still do a sympathetic piece on him without putting him on the cover just to sell more. 

Edit for grammar.

[Neysha]

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. ;)

[Cyrano Johnson]

Having actually seen it now... the photo is just not that glamorous, and that aspect of the whole conversation is really confusing. It's just a picture of a kid who happens to dress and have the haircut of a kid his age. It's not even all that flattering, except in that Tsarnaev happens to have pleasant and regular features. I've seen op-ed columns describing it as too "sultry" and "soulful" and I think the writers thereof are revealing a lot more about themselves than about the photo. The 1970 cover of Charles Manson was, for my money, way more disturbing.

I think the conversation about whether putting him on the cover is a good call is a valid one, though. The media plays a real role in driving the aspirations of certain fucked-up individuals to find fame through killing, it could choke off some of that by denying them the fame. How exactly you get there, though, I'm not sure: what you'd really need is an actual law against certain uses of the images of people like this, and I don't see where you'd find people to support such a law.

[Ephiral]

Yes, because if we're not glamorizing him we must demonize him. Those are our only two options after all.

Or another more neutral picture could be used, one that doesn't show him in handcuffs or make him look like a celebrity. Better yet, RS could still do sympathetic piece on him without putting him on the cover just to sell more.

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. ;)

See this? This is not a glamour shot. This is a pretty neutral shot of a pretty average, somewhat nice-looking kid. I'm not sure where you're getting "glamourizing" from this picture at all. Please, show me an example of what you mean by "more neutral" than this. For the record, the surveillance shot? Makes a terrible magazine cover and sets off the immediate kneejerk response in your head of "He's the guy who did that horrible thing! Get the torches and pitchforks!". So it's kinda out. You want one of him looking "normal"? Find something more normal than that, please.

As to not putting him on the cover: Well, it's the feature article. That's generally what you put on the cover. Had they not done that, run the same article but not made it the feature, people would be screaming bloody murder over how they're trivializing the issue. So this sounds an awful lot like "We can't talk about him except as an evil monster" to me.

[Neysha]

See this? This is not a glamour shot.

No one said it was a glamor shot.

This is a pretty neutral shot of a pretty average, somewhat nice-looking kid.

If it was a neutral shot, it wouldn't of provoked outrage. Unless you find you're opinion more valid then other peoples opinion, like those of the victims.

I'm not sure where you're getting "glamourizing" from this picture at all.

Probably from the same region you got your strange rant earlier from my innocuous response asking for a neutral picture. 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.

Please, show me an example of what you mean by "more neutral" than this.

Maybe use the most common picture shown of him that you can easily find?

For the record, the surveillance shot? Makes a terrible magazine cover

I feel sorry for Rolling Stones and hope that they don't suffer too much from being unable to apparently glamorize the Boston Marathon bomber on the cover of their magazine at the expense of the victims then.

and sets off the immediate kneejerk response in your head of "He's the guy who did that horrible thing! Get the torches and pitchforks!".

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 it's kinda out.

Why? The media always puts up mugshots and unflattering pictures of people they or the public find dislikable.

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.

Or even something like this, which could generate controversy, but at least couldn't be shown as ignoring the issue. Surround his picture with an appropriate collage of his victims.

As to not putting him on the cover: Well, it's the feature article.

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

That's generally what you put on the cover.

Oh thank you. I wasn't aware that the cover story is typically featured on the cover of the relevant publication.

[Kythia]

Or even something like this, which could generate controversy, but at least couldn't be shown as ignoring the issue. Surround his picture with an appropriate collage of his victims.

His alleged victims, is the point you seem to be missing.

[Neysha]

His alleged victims, is the point you seem to be missing.

So there aren't any real victims until the court of law says so?

[Kythia]

No, of course there are.  But its grossly horrifically inappropriate for the media to say they're his victims until a court of law says so.  Would be illegal over here and I hope to god it would be illegal over there as well.

[Ephiral]

No one said it was a glamor shot.

Then using it is glamorizing him how?

If it was a neutral shot, it wouldn't of provoked outrage. Unless you find you're opinion more valid then other peoples opinion, like those of the victims.

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.

Probably from the same region you got your strange rant earlier from my innocuous response asking for a neutral picture. 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.

So a neutral picture would be...? Obviously this doesn't fit the bill, so please show me what you mean. Which brings us to:

Maybe use the most common picture shown of him that you can easily find?

You mean this one, the first result, which isn't substantually different? Or maybe the second result, where he actually is giving the camera bedroom eyes? Third result is less him and more victims, and is also the bedroom eyes shot, so it's out. Fourth one has him looking at the camera through narrowed eyes in front of a Middle Eastern tapestry - yeah, that won't be polarizing. Which brings us to number five.

Take a guess.

And I think we're done with that little search.

I feel sorry for Rolling Stones and hope that they don't suffer too much from being unable to apparently glamorize the Boston Marathon bomber on the cover of their magazine at the expense of the victims then.

First: Glamorize how, exactly? The part where they use a picture that doesn't cause kneejerk hatred responses, or the part where they call him a monster over top of it? Second: Exactly what did this cost the victims? Be specific, please.

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 why do Western nations place such importance on the presumption of innocence, then? After all, it's not like it's important. Certainly doesn't affect the fairness of the legal system, right?

Why? The media always puts up mugshots and unflattering pictures of people they or the public find dislikable.

And this is an abandonment of journalistic integrity. The role of journalists is to present truth, not reinforce public opinion. And the truth is that this is not an evil inhuman creature - it's a screwed-up kid who got taken advantage of by an even more screwed-up ideology, and as a result (probably) did something horrible and tragic that spread the damage over innocents who in no way deserved any of what they got.

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.

This is flat-out disingenuous and you know it. I didn't say "Put a more neutral one on the cover of Rolling Stone", I said "Show me a more neutral one". Given that you're not pointing out what you find acceptable on the Google link, I have to go by Wikipedia, which... again, isn't substantially different in tone from the shot RS used.

Or even something like this, which could generate controversy, but at least couldn't be shown as ignoring the issue. Surround his picture with an appropriate collage of his victims.

Making the events leading up to it a feature article is now "ignoring the issue". I'll keep that in mind. For the record, you find the pictures of the killers used in that Time cover less glamorous? We... seem to have differing definitions. Or is it just the (immediately polarizing and thus destroying any semblance of neutrality) collage that's okay?

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

Were you the only person I was replying to?

[Neysha]

No, of course there are.  But its grossly horrifically inappropriate for the media to say they're his victims until a court of law says so.  Would be illegal over here and I hope to god it would be illegal over there as well.

Well if he's innocent then Rolling Stones certainly shouldn't be covering him at all until the trial is concluded.

[Driskoll]

Just because he's not wearing expensive jewelry or a pair of designer aviators doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a glamour shot. The picture in question is a close up of his face, and I think the way he's made to look resembles the way celebrities are commonly depicted on the cover. That is to say, I think the purpose of the picture is to make him look attractive and interesting. I don't believe it's a particularly neutral photograph.

The problem is though that this is a matter of opinion, not fact. If you look at that cover and honestly feel as though it's neutral or at least near it, that's fine. I don't however, and that's part of my problem with it.

I don't think people would be screaming bloody murder, at least not to the extent that you seem to think they would. I don't know if RS has done feature articles on other infamous cases, but they did write a few pieces on George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, and I don't remember any kind of outcry that neither of them were ever put on a cover. I just don't see a problem with writing this headline article and not including his picture. RS can say as many times as they want that they're not glorifying Tsarnaev, but I think putting a photo of him in the front page is a type of positive reinforcement.

Better yet, RS could still do a sympathetic piece on him without putting him on the cover just to sell more. 

So this sounds an awful lot like "We can't talk about him except as an evil monster" to me.

  >:(

[Ephiral]

Just because he's not wearing expensive jewelry or a pair of designer aviators doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a glamour shot. The picture in question is a close up of his face, and I think the way he's made to look resembles the way celebrities are commonly depicted on the cover. That is to say, I think the purpose of the picture is to make him look attractive and interesting. I don't believe it's a particularly neutral photograph.

One small problem: This is not their picture. They did not take it, or alter it in any way. It's a close-up of his face because it's an article about him and the circumstances that lead him to make a horrifying decision. It is not and cannot be made to look the way celebrities are commonly depicted on the cover of RS because it was not taken for that purpose. Again, I would like to see an example of a picture the naysayers find to be "neutral".

I don't think people would be screaming bloody murder, at least not to the extent that you seem to think they would. I don't know if RS has done feature articles on other infamous cases, but they did write a few pieces on George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, and I don't remember any kind of outcry that neither of them were ever put on a cover. I just don't see a problem with writing this headline article and not including his picture. RS can say as many times as they want that they're not glorifying Tsarnaev, but I think putting a photo of him in the front page is a type of positive reinforcement.

I was unaware of the ZImmerman/Martin thing; that is counterevidence, though not perfect. This was a feature article. The custom is to put the feature article on the cover. If they had not done so, it would be obvious that this was a deliberate choice, and would look like they were trying to downplay the issue. Note that this is both higher-profile, in public opinion, more one-sided than the Zimmerman/Martin case. As to "positive reinforcement": It might be if he cared about getting on the cover of Rolling Stone in any way. I see no indication that this is the case. It cannot be positive - cannot be reinforcement - if it does not matter to the subject.

>:(

Okay, yeah. Mea culpa; I somehow missed the key word there, and thus ascribed a more extreme position to you than you apparently hold. You have my deepest apologies.

[Trieste]

It's not a glamorous shot. He's not scoring a touchdown, he's not receiving an Emmy, he's just sitting there. Looking at the camera. In a T-shirt, slouched over on a bed, not smiling.

He's just sitting there.

Looking at the camera.

What is glamorizing about that? Nothing.

Further, he hasn't been convicted.

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.

If the only reason you can come up with for not publishing it is, "THINK OF THE VICTIMS!", then how about we look at it this way: A journalist spent two solid months researching more about this person in an effort to give everyone else, including the victims, an idea of who this person is and why he might do something like he did. I don't think those significant efforts should be ignored because the journalist's editor chose a picture that makes some people feel funny in the groinal area.

As an aside, I also don't think that "being less than repulsive in the facial area" counts as a big accomplishment. There are plenty of people and places that would have you think that not-being-hideous is some grandiose thing that they worked hard at, but it's more Covergirl bullshit that also needs to be tossed out the window.

[Neysha]

Then using it is glamorizing him how?

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

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.

All the more reason to use a neutral picture instead of one that can be more readily interpreted as demonizing or glamorizing him, whether you agree or not.

So a neutral picture would be...? Obviously this doesn't fit the bill, so please show me what you mean. Which brings us to:

You mean this one, the first result, which isn't substantually different? Or maybe the second result, where he actually is giving the camera bedroom eyes? Third result is less him and more victims, and is also the bedroom eyes shot, so it's out. Fourth one has him looking at the camera through narrowed eyes in front of a Middle Eastern tapestry - yeah, that won't be polarizing. Which brings us to number five.

Take a guess.

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?"

And I think we're done with that little search.[/spoiler]

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

First: Glamorize how, exactly?

By putting on a cover picture that caused this amount of outrage.

The part where they use a picture that doesn't cause kneejerk hatred responses, or the part where they call him a monster over top of it? Second: Exactly what did this cost the victims? Be specific, please.

I'll be this specific: 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.

So why do Western nations place such importance on the presumption of innocence, then? After all, it's not like it's important. Certainly doesn't affect the fairness of the legal system, right?

I just stated he should be given a fair trial. Stop editorializing my opinion.

And this is an abandonment of journalistic integrity.

Posting a neutral picture is abandoning journalistic integrity. I understand.

The role of journalists is to present truth, not reinforce public opinion.

Journalism has many roles including the one you stated, but the chief one being making money to pay off their mortgages. Regardless I don't see how posting a more neutral picture is reinforcing public opinion in a negative fashion.

And the truth is that this is not an evil inhuman creature - it's a screwed-up kid who got taken advantage of by an even more screwed-up ideology, and as a result (probably) did something horrible and tragic that spread the damage over innocents who in no way deserved any of what they got.

I have no idea who you are talking to here but I do hear violin music in the distance...

This is flat-out disingenuous and you know it. I didn't say "Put a more neutral one on the cover of Rolling Stone", I said "Show me a more neutral one". Given that you're not pointing out what you find acceptable on the Google link, I have to go by Wikipedia, which... again, isn't substantially different in tone from the shot RS used.

Again I didn't realize your opinion is more valued then those who are outraged. And I never demanded that they put a more neutral cover on Rolling Stone. If they want to make money selling magazines, more power to them. I'm just pointing out they clearly don't care about the sensitivities of the victims. But you've made it clear your opinion is more valuable then those who disagreement with the cover.

Making the events leading up to it a feature article is now "ignoring the issue". I'll keep that in mind. For the record, you find the pictures of the killers used in that Time cover less glamorous? We... seem to have differing definitions. Or is it just the (immediately polarizing and thus destroying any semblance of neutrality) collage that's okay?

Well then why did Time Magazine incriminate the allege perpetrators of the Colombine School Massacre before they were tried? Shouldn't you be more outraged over that? Or why Osama Bin Laden was wrongly villainized on the cover of Time Magazine and he never faced a trial either. Journalistic integrity has been lost for years it seems. :(

Were you the only person I was replying to?

My apologies. I didn't mean to attempt to rebute the reply to my post.

[Neysha]

It's not a glamorous shot. He's not scoring a touchdown, he's not receiving an Emmy, he's just sitting there. Looking at the camera. In a T-shirt, slouched over on a bed, not smiling.

He's just sitting there.

Looking at the camera.

What is glamorizing about that? Nothing.

Why is your opinion more valid then the victims?

I'm sorry, alleged victims.

Further, he hasn't been convicted.

Yet the Rolling Stones has convicted him by placing him on the cover of their magazine and making him a feature story. :(

As Ephiral stated, where is the journalistic integrity.

If the only reason you can come up with for not publishing it is, "THINK OF THE VICTIMS!", then how about we look at it this way: A journalist spent two solid months researching more about this person in an effort to give everyone else, including the victims, an idea of who this person is and why he might do something like he did.

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.

I don't think those significant efforts should be ignored because the journalist's editor chose a picture that makes some people feel funny in the groinal area.

Why do you hate the victims so much that you feel the reason they dislike the picture is because they are sexually aroused by it?

[Oniya]

As an aside, I also don't think that "being less than repulsive in the facial area" counts as a big accomplishment. There are plenty of people and places that would have you think that not-being-hideous is some grandiose thing that they worked hard at, but it's more Covergirl bullshit that also needs to be tossed out the window.

Ted Bundy was regarded as handsome and charismatic by his young female victims, traits he exploited in winning their trust.  Jesse James (the outlaw, not the biker guy) was quite dapper, as were many of the mobsters of the 1920s and 30s.  Looking good on the outside has nothing to do with what you are like on the inside.  'Oh, he looks good in that picture' means absolutely nothing.

[Driskoll]

One small problem: This is not their picture. They did not take it, or alter it in any way. It's a close-up of his face because it's an article about him and the circumstances that lead him to make a horrifying decision. It is not and cannot be made to look the way celebrities are commonly depicted on the cover of RS because it was not taken for that purpose. Again, I would like to see an example of a picture the naysayers find to be "neutral".

I did not know that. Thank you for telling me. It does change my opinion of the cover, though I still don't know if I would consider it as neutral as you may. I think the picture you provided is better, the exception being the background. The sterile white might bring negative connotations about, and may actually make the photo more off-putting.

I was unaware of the Zimmerman/Martin thing; that is counterevidence, though not perfect. This was a feature article. The custom is to put the feature article on the cover. If they had not done so, it would be obvious that this was a deliberate choice, and would look like they were trying to downplay the issue. Note that this is both higher-profile, in public opinion, more one-sided than the Zimmerman/Martin case. As to "positive reinforcement": It might be if he cared about getting on the cover of Rolling Stone in any way. I see no indication that this is the case. It cannot be positive - cannot be reinforcement - if it does not matter to the subject.

I don't know if it's reinforcing to him; I think the only person that would really know that is Tsarnaev. I do think it is reinforcing to any disturbed individuals out there who may already be interested in hurting innocent people though. Not that the cover of Rolling Stone would be some make or break point, or that there isn't plenty of other social reinforcement for that kind of behavior. I just don't think we need to add to it. 

Okay, yeah. Mea culpa; I somehow missed the key word there, and thus ascribed a more extreme position to you than you apparently hold. You have my deepest apologies.

Sarcasm? If not I apologize.

[Neysha]

In other news... people seem to be darkly humorous in their treatment of future possible Rolling Stones headlines.

This one is relevant to Ted Bundy:

HE'S HOT, HE'S SEXY, HE'S DEAD
40 Years Later, Ted Bundy Still Makes Girls Scream
#RollingStoneCoverIdeas—

Though this one is probably the one that made me snicker and shake my head the most.

Major Nidal Hasan: a distinguished military career disrupted.
#RollingStoneCoverIdeas—
Glenn (@GlennEThomas) July 18, 2013

[Ephiral]

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

What, exactly, is positive about a somewhat blurry face shot of an unsmiling kid with messed-up hair?

All the more reason to use a neutral picture instead of one that can be more readily interpreted as demonizing or glamorizing him, whether you agree or not.

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?"

How is the wikipedia picture more neutral than the one they used? And how is searching for what you told me to search for, using the link you provided, my tangent exactly? If you didn't think the search was relevant, why link to it?

By putting on a cover picture that caused this amount of outrage.

So glamour is measured in units of outrage, now? Where are all the protests and editorials about the evils of People, then?

I'll be this specific: 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.

So this cover has cost the victims my opinion that their kneejerk emotional response is automatically justified and more valid than any other opinion on the subject. Except the part where they never had it, because I reject the premise entirely. Nobody's kneejerk emotional response on any subject is better than putting some thought into it. Emotion-based responses are likely to be substantially worse.

I just stated he should be given a fair trial. Stop editorializing my opinion.

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.

A trial which takes place in an environment of presumed guilt cannot be fair. Which of these statements do you reject?

Posting a neutral picture is abandoning journalistic integrity. I understand.

How exactly is a mugshot neutral?

Journalism has many roles including the one you stated, but the chief one being making money to pay off their mortgages. Regardless I don't see how posting a more neutral picture is reinforcing public opinion in a negative fashion.

First: We still call journalism for nonprofits, or even without pay, journalism, so I think there's a flaw in your premise. Second: Could you please stop framing this as though the cover was an airbrushed picture of him shooting bedroom eyes at the camera, and you'd presented an alternative that was substantially different?

Again I didn't realize your opinion is more valued then those who are outraged. And I never demanded that they put a more neutral cover on Rolling Stone. If they want to make money selling magazines, more power to them. I'm just pointing out they clearly don't care about the sensitivities of the victims. But you've made it clear your opinion is more valuable then those who disagreement with the cover.

Did I ever say my opinion is more valuable than anybody else's? Please, quote me on that. As to the sensitivities of the victims: First, since when do we let people who have a lot of personal investment in one particular side of a matter of public interest dictate what gets published about it? Second, were you this torn up about the feelings of the victims when their bloody and mangled likenesses were thrown all over TV? I honestly don't think that the face of someone most of them never saw and none of them would recognize on the street without the media blitz is any more triggering than that.

Also, no, you didn't demand a more neutral cover on Rolling Stone. But you did pretend that I demanded you put one there, which you knew to be a lie. A poor one, since the record is right there.

Well then why did Time Magazine incriminate the allege perpetrators of the Colombine School Massacre before they were tried? Shouldn't you be more outraged over that? Or why Osama Bin Laden was wrongly villainized on the cover of Time Magazine and he never faced a trial either. Journalistic integrity has been lost for years it seems. :(

Except the part where a) the Columbine killers were dead, so their rights were a non-issue, and b) we had more substantive evidence that they did it, including, y'know, both civilian and police eyewitness reports. As for bin Laden, I hope you can grasp the difference between someone saying "I did it!" and the medis agreeing with him, and painting someone who is pleading not guilty as definitely guilty.

My apologies. I didn't mean to attempt to rebute the reply to my post.

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

This? Not a rebuttal to a reply to your post. You might have noticed that there were two quotes there, one of which said that it should not have been a cover story. Maybe comments saying "No, this is wrong, it needed to be on the cover given the circumstances" were about that?

[Neysha]

What, exactly, is positive about a somewhat blurry face shot of an unsmiling kid with messed-up hair?

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

How is the wikipedia picture more neutral than the one they used? And how is searching for what you told me to search for, using the link you provided, my tangent exactly? If you didn't think the search was relevant, why link to it?

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.

So glamour is measured in units of outrage, now? Where are all the protests and editorials about the evils of People, then?

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."

So this cover has cost the victims my opinion that their kneejerk emotional response is automatically justified and more valid than any other opinion on the subject. Except the part where they never had it, because I reject the premise entirely. Nobody's kneejerk emotional response on any subject is better than putting some thought into it. Emotion-based responses are likely to be substantially worse.

All the more reason to use a more neutral picture.

A trial which takes place in an environment of presumed guilt cannot be fair. Which of these statements do you reject?

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.

How exactly is a mugshot neutral?

What's wrong with posting a neutral picture?

First: We still call journalism for nonprofits, or even without pay, journalism, so I think there's a flaw in your premise.

Rolling Stones is not a nonprofit.

Second: Could you please stop framing this as though the cover was an airbrushed picture of him shooting bedroom eyes at the camera, and you'd presented an alternative that was substantially different?

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

Did I ever say my opinion is more valuable than anybody else's? Please, quote me on that.

Repeatedly and you do it again below.

As to the sensitivities of the victims: First, since when do we let people who have a lot of personal investment in one particular side of a matter of public interest dictate what gets published about it?

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.

Second, were you this torn up about the feelings of the victims when their bloody and mangled likenesses were thrown all over TV? I honestly don't think that the face of someone most of them never saw and none of them would recognize on the street without the media blitz is any more triggering than that.

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.

Also, no, you didn't demand a more neutral cover on Rolling Stone. But you did pretend that I demanded you put one there, which you knew to be a lie. A poor one, since the record is right there.

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.

Except the part where a) the Columbine killers were dead, so their rights were a non-issue,

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.

and b) we had more substantive evidence that they did it, including, y'know, both civilian and police eyewitness reports.

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

As for bin Laden, I hope you can grasp the difference between someone saying "I did it!" and the medis agreeing with him, and painting someone who is pleading not guilty as definitely guilty.

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

[Ephiral]

I did not know that. Thank you for telling me. It does change my opinion of the cover, though I still don't know if I would consider it as neutral as you may. I think the picture you provided is better, the exception being the background. The sterile white might bring negative connotations about, and may actually make the photo more off-putting.

It's pretty similar as far as the subject goes, but yeah, this is an issue I didn't see. So I'm back to "the photo they used is basically just a slice-of-life shot, and about as neutral as you get".

I don't know if it's reinforcing to him; I think the only person that would really know that is Tsarnaev. I do think it is reinforcing to any disturbed individuals out there who may already be interested in hurting innocent people though. Not that the cover of Rolling Stone would be some make or break point, or that there isn't plenty of other social reinforcement for that kind of behavior. I just don't think we need to add to it.

This... is actually a semi-solid point, though I'd say that the potential good to society of being able to humanize even people who did Very Bad Things is greater than the potential harm of offering an extremely small number of people a tiny bit more incentive as compared to the media blitz that already happened.

Sarcasm? If not I apologize.

Absolutely not. I screwed up, and in the process wronged you. It's important to own that.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Irony: a police officer posts his own photos of Tsarnaev to "show the real face of terror."

Yet suppose Rolling Stone had used one of them, like this one:



Would we now be having an outcry about how they'd showed him as a victim and exploited sensationalism and suffering for profit? I have a feeling we would.

[Trieste]

Why is your opinion more valid then the victims?

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. Having attended the same school as this guy, having been good friends with a professor who lost their arm to this bombing, having both friends and family in the vicinity of the finish line who were injured and uninjured, and having strong ties to the community that was bombed, I feel just as qualified as the mayor, Katlyn Townsend, etc.

It's not a question of validity or relative worth. It's a question of holy crap you guys calm the fuck down.

Why do you hate the victims so much that you feel the reason they dislike the picture is because they are sexually aroused by it?

Is there a reason that you're resorting to an ad hominem? Curious.

Ted Bundy was regarded as handsome and charismatic by his young female victims, traits he exploited in winning their trust.  Jesse James (the outlaw, not the biker guy) was quite dapper, as were many of the mobsters of the 1920s and 30s.  Looking good on the outside has nothing to do with what you are like on the inside.  'Oh, he looks good in that picture' means absolutely nothing.

Thank you for elaborating on the point I was trying to make. I think you grok what I was trying to get across.

[Neysha]

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.

Having attended the same school as this guy, having been good friends with a professor who lost their arm to this bombing, having both friends and family in the vicinity of the finish line who were injured and uninjured, and having strong ties to the community that was bombed, I feel just as qualified as the mayor, Katlyn Townsend, etc.

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.

Is there a reason that you're resorting to an ad hominem? Curious.

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.

[Driskoll]

This... is actually a semi-solid point, though I'd say that the potential good to society of being able to humanize even people who did Very Bad Things is greater than the potential harm of offering an extremely small number of people a tiny bit more incentive as compared to the media blitz that already happened.

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

Absolutely not. I screwed up, and in the process wronged you. It's important to own that.

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.

[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?

[Cyrano Johnson]

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

Tragically underrepresented, it's true, but not entirely unheard of:



I think we can build on this...

[Neysha]

AAAAAAND SUPLEX!
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.

Yes I am and have repeatedly:

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.

Not a big deal... but id be irked that no regard was given to the victims.

Unless you find you're opinion more valid then other peoples opinion, like those of the victims.

I feel sorry for Rolling Stones and hope that they don't suffer too much from being unable to apparently glamorize the Boston Marathon bomber on the cover of their magazine at the expense of the victims then.

Why is your opinion more valid then the victims?

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

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.

And that's just from the first two pages. I've referenced the victims plenty.

So please educate me.

Educate you on what? I'm not here to change your opinions.

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

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

Done in response to a callous attempt at downplaying either a gunshot victim whom Trieste stated was as much a victim as she was.

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

See? Either the double amputee or the gunshot wound victim isn't a real victim either in her eyes, or at least no more then Trieste feels she is. Once again you ignore the context to score points in some pathetic manner.

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

I didn't claim outrage defines glamorization. You defined it as such. I'm merely stating there is outrage because the bomber has been apparently glamorized.

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

Because the images were the same in both. Obviously.

Did you say you have no problem seeing him as guilty, or with public perception of guilt?

I never stated the public perception of him is guilty, that's beyond me to say or control.

Did you say that you know he is guilty, or that we do? Here's a hint:

Strawman since I cannot compel you to believe anything so stop with your whining. You already know that my beliefs on the issue will have no bearing on a fair trial, so stop with your useless obfuscations. They're petty, albeit amusing.

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

Because you brought it up and I replied to it even though it's irrelevant, like your silliness about how I am apparently in charge of giving him a fair trial.

You said you are okay with a presumption of guilt.

I am okay with myself possessing a belief he is guilty. That is not abnormal in this or any other case with any other person.

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:

Irrelevant to the Rolling Stones issue.

For the record, note how when I accuse you of lying, it's once I've shown that you said something,

Yes you show something out of context which is dishonest and thus...



You didn't examine it. You shot it down.

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.

The fact the outrage exists illustrates that it does not appear to be neutral to some parties.

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:

No its a proof that you feel your opinion is superior because you are arguing that it is right now.

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

Just one of the examples of victim outrage which you have ignored.

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

Isn't that how news media works?

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.

And I have.

Third, re the bolded part:It must've been painful when you were shot and had your legs blown off.

Done in response to this:

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

Therefore you are a...

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.

Yes and I showed you a more neutral image. You disagree that it is more neutral. It's a matter of opinion and I doubt I'll be able to change your mind because it seems self evident and obvious why one picture is more neutral then the one used.

I'll stop calling attention to your lies the moment you stop lying. Once again, the exchange was: 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.

Stop being facetious. My point was I personally couldn't change the Rolling Stones cover picture, not that I couldn't find the image in question, when I literally linked to two sources where a more neutral image could be found. You're harping on about nothing. Which is standard for you it seems.

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.

Misunderstood? It's bloody obvious what my point was if you bothered reading my posts. But you haven't.

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".

If you don't see a difference between the two pictures, one used on the Rolling Stones magazine, the other being the image already the most widely disseminated by the media, then I don't know what else to say. It's a matter of opinion. I just wish Rolling Stones used more sensitivity in choosing the most common image as opposed to the one that is being interpreted as glamorous.

Not ignoring them, just not letting their influence dictate the terms of the conversation. There's a difference.

Yes ignoring them.

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?"

I already showed a link to a widely disseminated picture, the most common image of him, which would probably be better then what the Rolling Stones cover used.

Hardly a miscarriage of justice - we knew who the perpetrators were because numerous survivors saw them with guns in hand, shooting people.

Allegedly.

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.

So because one Tsarnaev brother is dead, we're allowed to say he's guilty right?

Is there an eyewitness account or any footage of the Tsarnaev brothers actually planting bombs? If so, I am unaware of it.

You don't need actual footage in lieu of other evidence. Most crimes don't have that luxury.

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.

So Osama Bin Laden was coerced and compelled to confess, I understand.

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.

Stop being ignorant of the victims families.

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.

Oh no!

[Trieste]

Tragically underrepresented, it's true, but not entirely unheard of:



I think we can build on this...

I don't find him all that intimidating, to be honest.

[Neysha]

I don't find him all that intimidating, to be honest.

How about now?

[Oniya]

If the thread has come down to slinging 'Liar' gifs, I think it's time for people to move on.  Twenty-four hour cool down.

[Ephiral]

Having put some thought into the matter, I believe I'll leave the discussion at this.

[violet girl]

So, I am at Barnes & Noble the other day, and I am in the magazine section. I am in the music section and remember the Rolling Stone issue, so I start looking for it. I don't see it, and I start to wonder if they aren't carrying it. I see a stack of magazines turned around with their back covers facing forward. I turn them around, and, sure enough, it is Rolling Stone. I scoffed to myself that someone would, for all intents and purposes, try to 'censor' things, so, I made sure the magazine was left with the covers facing out. I do see how some can take offense to Dzhokar Tsarnaev being on the cover, but it is a First Amendment issue in my opinion. As others have said, Time has picked controversial people for their Persons of the Year issues. I think people need to stop getting so offended about everything. I am not insensitive to the victims or their suffering. I was horrified by the bombing, just like everyone else. However, if we agree that this is America, we agree that the First Amendment exists. I took my little act as a way to stand up for freedom of speech. People don't always say what we want to hear, but we need to honor people's right to do so. That is just my two cents worth. *Note: I realize everyone on this site does not reside in the U.S., but my point is Rolling Stone is an American publication. Therefore, the First Amendment applies.*

[Kythia]

I didn't realise companies benefitted from the First Amendment.  Been a-googlin' and see there's a bit about freedom of the press in there.  So that's my thing learnt for today.  Now I don't have to listen to anyone else for the next 22 hours.  Not risking learning two new things.

So thanks, violet girl.

[violet girl]

I didn't realise companies benefitted from the First Amendment.  Been a-googlin' and see there's a bit about freedom of the press in there.  So that's my thing learnt for today.  Now I don't have to listen to anyone else for the next 22 hours.  Not risking learning two new things.

So thanks, violet girl.

(Sarcastic much, Kythia?)

Everyone in America benefits from the First Amendment, Darling. Don't be naive.

You're welcome...just doing my civic duty. I am a teacher by trade, so I am glad I do my job well.

[Trieste]

Actually, I don't think that was sarcasm. Kythia isn't a US citizen or resident and, from what I can gather, has never lived here. The more publicized part of the First Amendment is "freedom of speech" so it's not that far-fetched that someone not-from-here would not also realize that it includes explicit freedoms of press, religion, assembly, etc.

@Kythia: The infamous ruling of the US Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission specifically extended First Amendment rights to several entities, corporations among them. So while it's not written into the US Constitution specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also protects the freedom of speech of more than just citizens.

[Kythia]

Yes, it wasn't meant as sarcasm.  I had just thought 1st Amendment = Free Speech, didn't realise there was other stuff in there as well (actually, I may have known about freedom of religion from another PROC thread now I properly think about it).  Sorry for not coming across well.

@Trieste - the logic presumably being that there's nothing there that limited it to citizens?  I see e.g. the 14th and 5th do talk specifically in terms of people.

EDIT:  Just found the Wikipedia page and apparently a bit more complex than that.  Serves me right for pretending to be a lawyer

[Trieste]

Yeah, don't ask me what they were thinking because I don't know. I didn't go read the full decision because I like my laptop and I prefer not to smash it.

[Kythia]

Really?!

Doesn't seem overly controversial to me.  What's the...yeah, this is probably getting off topic isn't it.

[Trieste]

You could make a thread if you want Elliquiy opinions on it, or use the googlemachine to find many of the (myriad) blog posts on it. I'd be surprised if Daily Kos didn't have a fairly detailed post (or thirty) explaining what's wrong with it. It would take me a while to go into the details (and, yeah, would be quite a bit off-topic) but suffice to say that it is considered by quite a few Americans as being the polar opposite of campaign finance reform. >.>

[Kythia]

It'll have to wait until tomorrow.  Already way over quota in learning new things today. Thanks for the point though, looks interesting.

[violet girl]

Yes, it wasn't meant as sarcasm.  I had just thought 1st Amendment = Free Speech

Sorry for taking it the wrong way. I read the comment a couple of times and thought it was sarcastic. *hugs Kythia*

I was thinking more about this though. Again, I do not necessarily agree with Rolling Stone's decision to put him on the cover, but I get the gist of what they are trying to convey. With the 'Monster' analogy, they are asking how close many of us may be to crossing the line from 'normalcy' to psychopathy. This kid (and yes, he is an adult, but still quite young) was popular in school and seemed to hold a promising future, but instead, either coerced by his radicalized brother, or of his own volition, decided to perpetrate a horrendous act of violence. Why? Perhaps it is too soon to ask this question, but the magazine has the right to ask it. Of course they put his picture on the cover to generate all the sentiments they have received. This sells magazines, or at least keeps the magazine in the forefront of public conversation. It is a win for Rolling Stone regardless.

If you look at other forms of media, we see the same shock value generated for publicity as well. Howard Stern has made a living out of shocking others. The First Amendment protects his right to do so. The First Amendment does not protect libel or slander of another person, but you can say almost anything and be protected under the Constitution.

[gaggedLouise]

It would have been more definitely offensive if they had, let's say, superimposed this image of him on the American flag, the way you might show a heroic athlete or someone who has won a resounding political victory for his country. And with the same kind of lighting and styling. And I don't imagine for a minute that Rolling Stone would have done that!

I'm trying to think of analogies from my own country to consider how I'd feel about those, but thankfully there's nothing quite like the Boston bombing (or the Columbine or Newtown school shootings) to compare with - not in the scale of the carnage achieved. Of course there's Breivik's massacre two years ago, in Norway which is just next door and a brother nation in every way - if he had been shown in a way that seemed glamourizing on the cover of a newspaper or a magazine, that would have been certain to provoke angry reactions...Or if some local multiple killers from here had been shown that way, such as the guys who, twenty years ago, machine-gunned down several people at a Stockholm nightclub because they had been refused entry by the bouncer. - Still, both with those young men and around Breivik there were questions posed afterwards, in the media and at the trials: why did this happen and who are these guys? Just as you're pointing out, Violet, they can't be dismissed as _only_ monstrous psychos.