Really? You're pissed at Rolling Stone?

[ABikerSailor]

It seems that a few people have their panties in a bunch because of the latest cover of Rolling Stone.

While the magazine may not have the cachet it did back in the day, "the cover of the Rolling Stone" has had an iconic role in American pop culture since Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show sang about their lust to be on it back in 1973.

So it's no surprise that Rolling Stone's decision to devote that hallowed real estate to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has triggered widespread outrage. Feelings about the hideous crime remain raw. Choosing as cover art a selfie of Tsarnaev with tousled hair and a vaguely come-hither expression rather than the aura of a fearsome alleged mass murderer didn't help, never mind that the photo has appeared everywhere, including on the front of The New York Times.

CONTROVERSY: Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm

The comments in such venues as Twitter, Facebook and Boston.com are brutal, lambasting the magazine for glorifying terrorists and calling for readers to boycott it in the future.

But while it's understandable that people are upset by the attention to "Jahar," I'm not sure Rolling Stone is guilty of any journalistic war crimes.

Some commenters have wondered what a magazine that tends to feature on its covers musicians like, er, the Rolling Stones is trying to tell us by putting an alleged terrorist out there. But Rolling Stone has a long history of featuring serious news coverage as well as rock 'n' roll.

Just three years ago, Gen. Stanley McChrystal lost his job as commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan because of an article in Rolling Stone that featured caustic comments about President Obama by the general and his aides. Back in the 1970s, it featured the groundbreaking political coverage of gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. And, speaking of mass murderers, Charles Manson was once on the cover of Rolling Stone.

While the full text of the article isn't scheduled to be released until Friday, it hardly sounds like a puff piece. Here's the cover type: "THE BOMBER," followed by, "How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by his Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster."

Don't stone 'Rolling Stone' over Boston bomber cover

Interestingly, people are pissed that Tsarnaev is on the cover, yet very few bitched when Charles Manson was on the cover.

Sorry, but Rolling Stone covers the celebrities when there's no significant news, but when it boils over into the psyche of the American public, then they tend to cover it.

If you're pissed about Tsarnaev is on the cover get over it.

They're just covering the news.

 

[daveman]

I'm not pissed at RS. I'm amazed that a liberal publication has admitted that radical Islam is a danger.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember when RS was angry at Nixon for his "Imperial Presidency"?

LOL

Yeah, I know

 

[Caroljo]

They didn't portray Manson as a rock star......

 

[Cenere]

Yeah, I think it is the glam shot that is bothering a lot of people. If you didn't know what was going on you'd think you were picking about an issue about some new singer or actor. Even OJ's cover had a mug shot on it...but I think the glam shot might have been to show people that you might not expect who is behind a crime...or to make teenage girls who defended this creep pick up an issue...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What did you want RS to talk about, how Obama built a police state and has surveillance on every American, but let these 2 guys get through even after Putin dropped a dime on them?

 

[daveman]

They didn't portray Manson as a rock star......

Are you sure?

 

[Big Black Dog]

The Rolling Stone put this dick head's picture on their cover with hopes of generating sales the same way all the liberal press slings shit at anything conservative or Republican - all done in the hopes of selling a few more newspapers.

 

[Luissa]

The Rolling Stone put this dick head's picture on their cover with hopes of generating sales the same way all the liberal press slings shit at anything conservative or Republican - all done in the hopes of selling a few more newspapers.

Kind of like conservative and republican press does?

 

[tipofthespear]

The Rolling Stone put this dick head's picture on their cover with hopes of generating sales the same way all the liberal press slings shit at anything conservative or Republican - all done in the hopes of selling a few more newspapers.

Especially if they can claim "racism" or "sexism" against the Repubs.......Conservatives.

And, no, I have not seen the Conservative Media do the same. If you have an example, I would be happy to read it.......Generally the Conservative Media/Talking Heads on Radio just trash all things liberal......but then there aren't nearly as many of them on TV or Print Media are there? And given that the Big Three, plus CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, and the durn Weather Channel for crying out loud are sold out lock, stock and barrel for the Socialist Liberals.......what stories do get out don't get all that much coverage do they?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If Rolling Stone magazine is supposed to be a music magazine, what does that guy have to do with music?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[hjmick]

It seems that a few people have their panties in a bunch because of the latest cover of Rolling Stone.

While the magazine may not have the cachet it did back in the day, "the cover of the Rolling Stone" has had an iconic role in American pop culture since Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show sang about their lust to be on it back in 1973.

So it's no surprise that Rolling Stone's decision to devote that hallowed real estate to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has triggered widespread outrage. Feelings about the hideous crime remain raw. Choosing as cover art a selfie of Tsarnaev with tousled hair and a vaguely come-hither expression rather than the aura of a fearsome alleged mass murderer didn't help, never mind that the photo has appeared everywhere, including on the front of The New York Times.

CONTROVERSY: Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm

The comments in such venues as Twitter, Facebook and Boston.com are brutal, lambasting the magazine for glorifying terrorists and calling for readers to boycott it in the future.

But while it's understandable that people are upset by the attention to "Jahar," I'm not sure Rolling Stone is guilty of any journalistic war crimes.

Some commenters have wondered what a magazine that tends to feature on its covers musicians like, er, the Rolling Stones is trying to tell us by putting an alleged terrorist out there. But Rolling Stone has a long history of featuring serious news coverage as well as rock 'n' roll.

Just three years ago, Gen. Stanley McChrystal lost his job as commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan because of an article in Rolling Stone that featured caustic comments about President Obama by the general and his aides. Back in the 1970s, it featured the groundbreaking political coverage of gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. And, speaking of mass murderers, Charles Manson was once on the cover of Rolling Stone.

While the full text of the article isn't scheduled to be released until Friday, it hardly sounds like a puff piece. Here's the cover type: "THE BOMBER," followed by, "How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by his Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster."

Don't stone 'Rolling Stone' over Boston bomber cover

Interestingly, people are pissed that Tsarnaev is on the cover, yet very few bitched when Charles Manson was on the cover.

Sorry, but Rolling Stone covers the celebrities when there's no significant news, but when it boils over into the psyche of the American public, then they tend to cover it.

If you're pissed about Tsarnaev is on the cover get over it.

They're just covering the news.

I couldn't care less about Rolling Stone, but I feel compelled to point out that Manson at least had a musical connection, and not just the whole Helter Skelter thing. He was a singer/songwriter, thanks to Dennis Wilson. (Some of his songs have been covered in recent years by popular musicians.)

And let us not forget, those were different times...

 

[ABikerSailor]

If Rolling Stone magazine is supposed to be a music magazine, what does that guy have to do with music?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

They are a music magazine which also covers world events.

Is that too hard for you to grasp?

 

[ABikerSailor]

They didn't portray Manson as a rock star......

Have you read what they wrote about Tsarnaev? I don't think they portrayed him as a rock star either.

I saw what Steve Doocy said about Tsarnaev being on the cover. Seems that FAUX Nooze thinks that his being on the cover of RS is going to encourage more terrorists.

I haven't heard something that stupid in a long time..........................

 

[FireFly]

They are struggling to be relevant.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They are struggling to be relevant.

Who? FAUX Nooze or Rolling Stone?

 

[hjmick]

They are struggling to be relevant.

Who? FAUX Nooze or Rolling Stone?

Both.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems that a few people have their panties in a bunch because of the latest cover of Rolling Stone.

While the magazine may not have the cachet it did back in the day, "the cover of the Rolling Stone" has had an iconic role in American pop culture since Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show sang about their lust to be on it back in 1973.

So it's no surprise that Rolling Stone's decision to devote that hallowed real estate to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has triggered widespread outrage. Feelings about the hideous crime remain raw. Choosing as cover art a selfie of Tsarnaev with tousled hair and a vaguely come-hither expression rather than the aura of a fearsome alleged mass murderer didn't help, never mind that the photo has appeared everywhere, including on the front of The New York Times.

CONTROVERSY: Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm

The comments in such venues as Twitter, Facebook and Boston.com are brutal, lambasting the magazine for glorifying terrorists and calling for readers to boycott it in the future.

But while it's understandable that people are upset by the attention to "Jahar," I'm not sure Rolling Stone is guilty of any journalistic war crimes.

Some commenters have wondered what a magazine that tends to feature on its covers musicians like, er, the Rolling Stones is trying to tell us by putting an alleged terrorist out there. But Rolling Stone has a long history of featuring serious news coverage as well as rock 'n' roll.

Just three years ago, Gen. Stanley McChrystal lost his job as commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan because of an article in Rolling Stone that featured caustic comments about President Obama by the general and his aides. Back in the 1970s, it featured the groundbreaking political coverage of gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. And, speaking of mass murderers, Charles Manson was once on the cover of Rolling Stone.

While the full text of the article isn't scheduled to be released until Friday, it hardly sounds like a puff piece. Here's the cover type: "THE BOMBER," followed by, "How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by his Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster."

Don't stone 'Rolling Stone' over Boston bomber cover

Interestingly, people are pissed that Tsarnaev is on the cover, yet very few bitched when Charles Manson was on the cover.

Sorry, but Rolling Stone covers the celebrities when there's no significant news, but when it boils over into the psyche of the American public, then they tend to cover it.

If you're pissed about Tsarnaev is on the cover get over it.

They're just covering the news.

Did you read the article? If not, how the fuck do you know what they are doing? Unlike you, I will actually reserve judgement until I read it, if I ever do. Judging from the way they usually "cover the issues" my guess is that the article will end up blaming white society for turning him into a monster. The days when they actually reported the issues without putting their own political spin on things ended not long after they wrote about Manson.

By the way, if you think there was no outrage about Rolling Stone putting Charles Manson on its cover you are even dumber than you look.

 

[Luissa]

It seems that a few people have their panties in a bunch because of the latest cover of Rolling Stone.

While the magazine may not have the cachet it did back in the day, "the cover of the Rolling Stone" has had an iconic role in American pop culture since Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show sang about their lust to be on it back in 1973.

So it's no surprise that Rolling Stone's decision to devote that hallowed real estate to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has triggered widespread outrage. Feelings about the hideous crime remain raw. Choosing as cover art a selfie of Tsarnaev with tousled hair and a vaguely come-hither expression rather than the aura of a fearsome alleged mass murderer didn't help, never mind that the photo has appeared everywhere, including on the front of The New York Times.

CONTROVERSY: Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm

The comments in such venues as Twitter, Facebook and Boston.com are brutal, lambasting the magazine for glorifying terrorists and calling for readers to boycott it in the future.

But while it's understandable that people are upset by the attention to "Jahar," I'm not sure Rolling Stone is guilty of any journalistic war crimes.

Some commenters have wondered what a magazine that tends to feature on its covers musicians like, er, the Rolling Stones is trying to tell us by putting an alleged terrorist out there. But Rolling Stone has a long history of featuring serious news coverage as well as rock 'n' roll.

Just three years ago, Gen. Stanley McChrystal lost his job as commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan because of an article in Rolling Stone that featured caustic comments about President Obama by the general and his aides. Back in the 1970s, it featured the groundbreaking political coverage of gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. And, speaking of mass murderers, Charles Manson was once on the cover of Rolling Stone.

While the full text of the article isn't scheduled to be released until Friday, it hardly sounds like a puff piece. Here's the cover type: "THE BOMBER," followed by, "How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by his Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster."

Don't stone 'Rolling Stone' over Boston bomber cover

Interestingly, people are pissed that Tsarnaev is on the cover, yet very few bitched when Charles Manson was on the cover.

Sorry, but Rolling Stone covers the celebrities when there's no significant news, but when it boils over into the psyche of the American public, then they tend to cover it.

If you're pissed about Tsarnaev is on the cover get over it.

They're just covering the news.

Did you read the article? If not, how the fuck do you know what they are doing? Unlike you, I will actually reserve judgement until I read it, if I ever do. Judging from the way they usually "cover the issues" my guess is that the article will end up blaming white society for turning him into a monster. The days when they actually reported the issues without putting their own political spin on things ended not long after they wrote about Manson.

By the way, if you think there was no outrage about Rolling Stone putting Charles Manson on its cover you are even dumber than you look.

So you go after Biker for judging the story, then you judge what the story is probably about? Lol
And the magazine won an award for the Manson story, so I doubt there was a lot of outrage.

As for political spin... You probably have never even bought a Rolling Stone magazine. Lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems that a few people have their panties in a bunch because of the latest cover of Rolling Stone.

Don't stone 'Rolling Stone' over Boston bomber cover

Interestingly, people are pissed that Tsarnaev is on the cover, yet very few bitched when Charles Manson was on the cover.

Sorry, but Rolling Stone covers the celebrities when there's no significant news, but when it boils over into the psyche of the American public, then they tend to cover it.

If you're pissed about Tsarnaev is on the cover get over it.

They're just covering the news.

Did you read the article? If not, how the fuck do you know what they are doing? Unlike you, I will actually reserve judgement until I read it, if I ever do. Judging from the way they usually "cover the issues" my guess is that the article will end up blaming white society for turning him into a monster. The days when they actually reported the issues without putting their own political spin on things ended not long after they wrote about Manson.

By the way, if you think there was no outrage about Rolling Stone putting Charles Manson on its cover you are even dumber than you look.

So you go after Biker for judging the story, then you judge what the story is probably about? Lol
And the magazine won an award for the Manson story, so I doubt there was a lot of outrage.

As for political spin... You probably have never even bought a Rolling Stone magazine. Lol

I didn't judge the story, I judged the editorial policy of the magazine. Care to make an argument that I got it wrong?