(07-17-2013 11:17 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:12 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:09 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:08 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Sorry slipped to your line of thinking for a second

Epic comeback.

People like you make me hate being a Republican

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=640394

Reminds me of 7th grade when a girl would dedicate a song to me

Did she call you out and make you look like a fool too?

(07-19-2013 10:50 AM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  Sounds like you already have a troll dixie lol

How is this any different than his face being on the front of the New York Times or Boston Post?

Someone in the Massachusetts State Police leaked photos of Johkar being pulled out of the Boat. Police had a red laser targeting device on his forehead just in case he blew a vest.

(07-19-2013 12:54 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Someone in the Massachusetts State Police leaked photos of Johkar being pulled out of the Boat. Police had a red laser targeting device on his forehead just in case he blew a vest.

I started a thread about it below.

(07-19-2013 11:45 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  How is this any different than his face being on the front of the New York Times or Boston Post?

It's not.

Judging Rolling Stone by Its Cover

(07-19-2013 11:45 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  How is this any different than his face being on the front of the New York Times or Boston Post?

Seriously. Has it not been explained throughout this thread?

....the New York and Boston Post are newpapers. They aren't posting glamor shots of the bomber on their front page making him look like a rock star. Rolling Stone is an entertainment magazine that glorifies celebrities. This guy is not a celebrity. There is huge problem with that. Otherwise it wouldn't have generated such a backlash.

(07-19-2013 03:35 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 11:45 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  How is this any different than his face being on the front of the New York Times or Boston Post?

Seriously. Has it not been explained throughout this thread?

....the New York and Boston Post are newpapers. They aren't posting glamor shots of the bomber on their front page making him look like a rock star. Rolling Stone is an entertainment magazine that glorifies celebrities. This guy is not a celebrity. There is huge problem with that. Otherwise it wouldn't have generated such a backlash.

Ummmm...the NYT used the EXACT SAME photo on their front page in May.

And are you still ignoring that the RS called him a monster on the cover? Also, have you actually read the RS article yet?

judging an article by it's cover? This is a perfect example of acting like a low information voter. Read the article 1st. You're better than this!

(07-19-2013 03:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 03:35 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 11:45 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  How is this any different than his face being on the front of the New York Times or Boston Post?

Seriously. Has it not been explained throughout this thread?

....the New York and Boston Post are newpapers. They aren't posting glamor shots of the bomber on their front page making him look like a rock star. Rolling Stone is an entertainment magazine that glorifies celebrities. This guy is not a celebrity. There is huge problem with that. Otherwise it wouldn't have generated such a backlash.

Ummmm...the NYT used the EXACT SAME photo on their front page in May.

And are you still ignoring that the RS called him a monster on the cover? Also, have you actually read the RS article yet?

Let's analyze and contrast shall we?



The NYT does use the same photo, but it does not put the suspect in any light. It just uses his image to give readers an idea of what he looks like while reading the article - an article that doesn't try to suggest the to the reader he is merely misunderstood.

The Rolling Stone addition zooms in on the photo, using his head as a focal point, with side bars to other stories surrounding his head shot. Articles about Willie Nelson and other entertainers....while talking about how he was a good kid that just went bad. People don't want to hear that. Especially people in Boston and the surviving family members.

And for the 5th time now, the NYT reports the news. Rolling Stone magazine glorifies celebrities and pop culture. If it wasn't in poor taste, there would be no backlash.

It isn't in poor taste....just gives you something to complain about. Rolling Stone has run news articles from time to time. They have run articles relevant to readers. Do you honestly think they thought "lets make this guy a icon" or was it more "lets do an gripping article on a major event from 2013."?

If this were Spin or Teen People I could see the outcry a little more since those are strictly pop culture....RS is not.

(07-19-2013 04:58 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  If this were Spin or Teen People I could see the outcry a little more since those are strictly pop culture....RS is not.

and if it was your 8 year old son that was blown apart I'm sure you'd see the outcry as well.

Certainly plenty of retailers believe it's in poor taste.

(07-19-2013 05:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 04:58 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  If this were Spin or Teen People I could see the outcry a little more since those are strictly pop culture....RS is not.

and if it was your 8 year old son that was blown apart I'm sure you'd see the outcry as well.

Again, I ask, were you upset when that picture was on NYT? I'm sure Brad Pitt or some other celebrity has been on both covers before...maybe even in the same month. No different. RS is not a strictly "entertainment" magazine.

(07-19-2013 06:09 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 05:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 04:58 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  If this were Spin or Teen People I could see the outcry a little more since those are strictly pop culture....RS is not.

and if it was your 8 year old son that was blown apart I'm sure you'd see the outcry as well.

Again, I ask, were you upset when that picture was on NYT? I'm sure Brad Pitt or some other celebrity has been on both covers before...maybe even in the same month. No different. RS is not a strictly "entertainment" magazine.

I already addressed this comparison earlier in the thread. It's got a lot of people upset and for good reason.

Quote:As the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple points out, the image is exploitative—but it isn’t just exploitative: It’s also smart, unnerving journalism. By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth. The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists. It asks, “What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?” The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013...alism.html

The cover and its symbolism, while a bit high brow for the typical American, fits perfectly with the article, which examines how a seemingly typical American college student can fall victim to the influence of radical Islam.

The picture itself is rather unremarkable and is nothing more than a Facebook 'selfie' that is particularly common amongst teens and college students. Its purpose, for Rolling Stone, is to show Tsarnaev as a normal college student before his radicalization. The purpose of the article is to show the transformation of Tsarnaev from that typical student in the photo to the terrorist that bombed the Boston Marathon. Its quite brilliant, actually.