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?