Topic: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover

[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.