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