End Rolling Stone Magazine

[UncleDan]

I didn't see a thread on this, but what a ridiculously disrespectful stunt by Rolling Stone Magazine. I'm glad to see quite a few stores are refusing to sell this particular edition. I wish they would drop them all together.

They've got Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover like he's Jim Morrison. They deserve to crash and burn.

Retailers vow not to sell Rolling Stone issue as critics blast decision to put accused Boston bomber on cover | Fox News

 

[Sonic605hp]

Really is disgusting.

 

[Gray_Ghost]

I haven't read it in years, but I'm curious why he's on the cover. As for retailers vowing not to sell the magazine, nobody complained when Obama or Bernanke made the cover of Time magazine. And those two have done far more harm to this country.

 

[Jenkins]

The cover of a magazine is the first impression and is the reason for newsstand sales. I believe that they were just trying to sell magazines not to make him a pop star.

 

[FIVEHOE]

I just don't get why he was on there in the first place?

 

[Mr. Mach-ete]

The thought that a leftist rag such as the Rolling Stone magazine would capitalize for profit by using murdering terrorist's on it's cover is irony at it's lowest level.

Two things can be found at the bottom of the ocean, whale dung and copies of Rolling Stone Magazine.

 

[svtsmo]

typical sick marketing ploy. from what i've read and heard from the article, its actually well done, and yet the cover has nothing to do with it. the cover image and caption below are completely misleading. it portrays him as a rockstar and insinuates that he has some sort of excuse as to why he did what he did, or that society and family let him down (gee, sounds like another thing going on in this country at the moment).

its nothing more than a hack media outlet trying to gain attention and sell copies, and as usual, and unfortunately, it worked. rolling stone deserves every single bit of criticism and backlash they are recieving at the moment.

 

[PDubs]

Anything to boost profits. Way to give those a-holes a platform and global visibility.

 

[shanezt]

well it worked, before this issue, when was the last time anyone thought about that shitty mag?

 

[xblitzkriegx]

so what? if you dont like it, dont buy it and dont read it. that issue sitting on a news stand doesnt affect you in anyway other than you might accidentally see it.

i dont like it either but that doesnt mean you have to cry about ending a magazine over it. people are allowed to have differing opinions from you. grow up.

 

[Gringo185]

I've never liked Rolling Stone. The extreme-left, liberal trash that they spew is more than I can handle. Plus, their political columns aside, reading about the music industry is about as interesting as reading about the latest quick drying paint or fertilizer that allows grass to grow twice as fast. So needless to say, not picking up the latest issue is not going to be a problem.

My friend however, is a huge Rolling Stone fan. He is also a US Marine (combat veteran and purple heart recipient) that is from Boston. I haven't asked him what he thinks yet.

 

[Steve@BAS]

I don't know why/how but in 07/08 I started getting it in the mail for free.

I remember getting one that was a GWBush exit interview "that we wish he gave" but they spoke though him and make him into a doushe.

There was an article that said out of the thousands of women they polled, hybrids and efficient cars were "sexier" than sportscars.

Just really pushing that left wing hard.

 

[ssssnake]

Rolling Stone, like MTV, should stick to MUSIC, not political views. You know, kinda like Bruce Springsteen and the rest of the other idiots.

Just read this on the Breitbart website....

The cover of Rolling Stone was once reserved for the newest bands, the hottest singer-songwriters or the pop culture phenoms grabbing the country by the scruff of its neck.
By using that once revered space for an alleged terrorist, the magazine is squandering plenty of its accumulated good will. Even Hollywood denizens are speaking out against the use of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover.

Doug Ellin, best known as one of the creative forces behind HBO's Entourage, set the tone with this succinct Tweet:

Making a great album isn't enough to get you on the cover of rolling stone anymore. Blowing up kids is. #pathetic

Ralph Macchio of Karate Kid fame, retweeted Ellin's message to share the actor's frustration with his followers.

Others blasting Rolling Stone's editorial decision include musician Tommy Lee, Jack Osbourne, John Rich, Carson Daly and Disturbed singer David Draiman.

Even Captain America himself, Chris Evans, weighed in on the matter:

Bad move, Rolling Stone

Even the official Twitter feed for The Howard Stern Show, a radio program known for its no holds barred humor, spoke out against the cover choice.

Good morning! Howard loves @RollingStone but is very offended by their cover with the Boston Bomber on it. Rolling Stone slammed for 'Boston Bomber' cover

The magazine officially responded to the controversy today:

Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.​

 

[svtsmo]

so what? if you dont like it, dont buy it and dont read it. that issue sitting on a news stand doesnt affect you in anyway other than you might accidentally see it.

i dont like it either but that doesnt mean you have to cry about ending a magazine over it. people are allowed to have differing opinions from you. grow up.

they dont have a differing opinion. they have a supposed fact based article highlighted by a cover that, other than the photo, doesn't reflect at all on the content. its designed to be a shock factor to intended to garner interest in an otherwise irrelevant media outlet. it's the typical 'sell sell sell' and 'look at me' factor from a news outlet that disregards the social and moral impact of their decision.

in this regard, maybe both you AND the afore mentioned garbage news source should 'grow up' and realize why people are offended.

 

[lobra97]

i saw the cover on Fb...i didn't even read article, just a waste.

 

[xblitzkriegx]

they dont have a differing opinion. they have a supposed fact based article highlighted by a cover that, other than the photo, doesn't reflect at all on the content. its designed to be a shock factor to intended to garner interest in an otherwise irrelevant media outlet. it's the typical 'sell sell sell' and 'look at me' factor from a news outlet that disregards the social and moral impact of their decision.

in this regard, maybe both you AND the afore mentioned garbage news source should 'grow up' and realize why people are offended.

the content is irrelevant. if youre offended by the cover then dont buy the mag. its that simple. no one is kicking in homeowners doors and forcing people to read it. i totally get that it appears that rolling stone is glorifying him based on the content of the cover.

what i meant by differing view is that not everyone thinks the mag should be ended over a cover photo even if it is crass. if enough people are upset about it, sales will suffer and the mag will end. its not been very good in a long time anyways.

i think its perfectly fine to speak out against it. i dont agree with it either. its pathetic on every level. that doesnt mean the mag should be ended because some panties have been waded.

i know exactly what it was designed to do, generate interest and sell issues to make money. you cant exactly vilify them for that, they need to make money. obviously they chose a less than desirable way to do so. lol.

finally, if you dont like it, dont buy it. it really is that simple.

p.s. aforementioned is one word. :thumbsup: jussa lil snarky comment for ya.

 

[Steve@TF]

if i was Chechnyan and had a son...

 

[jrandy]

the content is irrelevant. if youre offended by the cover then dont buy the mag. its that simple. no one is kicking in homeowners doors and forcing people to read it. i totally get that it appears that rolling stone is glorifying him based on the content of the cover.

what i meant by differing view is that not everyone thinks the mag should be ended over a cover photo even if it is crass. if enough people are upset about it, sales will suffer and the mag will end. its not been very good in a long time anyways.

i think its perfectly fine to speak out against it. i dont agree with it either. its pathetic on every level. that doesnt mean the mag should be ended because some panties have been waded.

i know exactly what it was designed to do, generate interest and sell issues to make money. you cant exactly vilify them for that, they need to make money. obviously they chose a less than desirable way to do so. lol.

finally, if you dont like it, dont buy it. it really is that simple.

p.s. aforementioned is one word. :thumbsup: jussa lil snarky comment for ya.

Agreed to an extent. But by glorifying his actions, it really is causing an issue. By putting him on the cover of the magazine and making the reference they are, it is sending the signal to dipshits everywhere that if they want to be famous and on the cover of Rolling Stones..... well you get the idea.

I am all for society choosing what business can and can't do via sales, but this is what is wrong with America. You can't name any of the victims of 99% of these types of tragedies, but chances are you would recognize both the names and pictures of the people responsible.

(For reference, I am not referring to any single person with you. I am talking generally here)


* Quick edit.... Rolling Stone could have used literally thousands of other images, just as powerful, as the one they chose. They wanted to be controversial and push peoples limits, but at what cost? All our society does is give these people the infamy most want.

 

[CobraBob]

I honestly don't care because I haven't bought or read a Rolling Stones magazine in decades. This is not surprising, though. Just about all media venues love controversy because it usually generates more attention, and more attention generates more income. I would bet they knew and expected that the photo would do create controversy.

 

[NitrousExpress]

I disagree with their actions as well.
-Garrett