There's no such thing as bad publicity

[konradv]

Looks like enough people are interested in the Boston Bomber story to make this the best selling issue of Rolling Stone in a long time. From what I can recall, not having read an issue in a long time, their investigative stories are usually very evenhanded without the hysteria found in many of the more partisan outlets.

Rolling Stone sales double with 'Boston Bomber' issue - Aug. 1, 2013

 

[blastoff]

It's actually a rather interesting story. That some got pissed off at what they considered an all too flattering cover picture is understandable.

But it apparently did the trick with newsstand sales for the issue, but whether it's sustained with subsequent issues remains to be seen. Though I'd wager sales will be back to normal soon.

 

[konradv]

I don't understand the "too flattering picture" angle. Were they supposed to put horns on him?

 

[Pogo]

I don't understand the "too flattering picture" angle. Were they supposed to put horns on him?

Apparently.
The RS editor tweeted ""I guess we should have drawn a dick on Dzhokhar's face or something?" Didn't make much sense. They ran a straight undoctored picture, (the same one the NYTimes ran in May).

What's more interesting is that the same wags who deplored Rolling Stone for running an undoctored picture (and apparently making a profit from it) are in the other threads crowing about how much money Lush Rimjob makes from calling a college student a "slut". So while both make money, straight news reporting is vile, while vile misrepresentation is admired.

Can't make this stuff up. Over the mountain I can hear George Orwell laughing his ass off.