I'd reserve judgment till I actually read the article, but I'm sure there's a reason that Rolling Stone put that specific picture on the cover. I was reading an cracked article and this this actually has a fan following and groupies.
Saying that Rolling Stone is a music mag is like saying that MTV is the music video network.
We all know MTV has become a reality tv show network, and we should know that Rolling Stone has just as much focus on politics as it does music these days.
I get that you like the mag. Normally I could care less about what's in it either way. If it makes you feel any better I'm really just judging this cover, I don't read the magazine at all to comment on the day-to-day...though if they consider this kind of thing to be a good idea in general I doubt I'd be a fan.
Watching the coverage this morning I see why its not....a good idea. But im not sure it needs national coverage. Its the kinda thing taken for more serious because people get mad and make a big deal of it. I wouldnt even know he was on the cover if not for the outrage.
Why give it the most attention they have probably had ever? They knew you would get mad. They wanted the reaction. They win.
Boycotts dont do anything these days. I remember people mad at chick fila over being anti gay and people flocked there just to piss protesters off.
No...I dont find hating gays to be equal to blowing people up.
I just dont buy the "Boycott" angle when all the people doing it wanted was attention to begin with.
Not saying a word about it would be more effective. I bet every copy is bought, more people read it and find him humanized, and people might even save the issue because of all the controversy. Making a big deal about it is exactly what they wanted. Print media is near dead but one managed to be on every news program in the country.
They may get a net bump in sales but their readership is going to suffer in Massachusetts, stores won't put it on the shelves and local subscribers are canceling subscriptions and demanding refunds. I wonder how much money they need to make to make all the hate their getting worthwhile? Because hate does effect people, even people with money.
I think its sad that an American made magazine would promote terrorism against its own country. That is exactly what they are doing by putting a terrorist on the cover of their magazine, and trying to make us feel bad for him.
How mad would you be if you were affected by the bombings and then you walk down the street to see the culprit on the cover of a magazine??
Rolling Stone fell off a long time ago anyways, nobody reads that sh1t
Someone at RS obviously saw the buzz around those twitter air heads crushing over him ran with it to try and sell to teenage girls. It has nothing to do with journalism and anyone mad about it has a point. They are trying to sexualize a terrorist.