Suspected Boston bomber on cover of Rolling Stone magazine

Originally posted by GrantedBail
Well, frankly, I take issue with him being a bomber at all. I think the whole story is bull puckey. How is that? And to see that picture and the bi-line on the cover of Rolling Stone gives me pause.

I always have trusted Rolling Stone as an alternative media outlet. But, they are running with the OS???

Man, has every freaking independent outlet for news been co-opted by the man??

What's next?? The Nation, OPED news, Mother Jones??? Is there any bastion of the Fourth Column left??? No, I don't think so. That is why Michael Hastings was murdered.

So you realize how f$#%@ed we are???

RIGHT ON !! I can't believe that people still beleive all the friggin bullsh$t being gushed upon us like projectile vomitus from the man. Keep eating the GMO food. Keep goin to war for the Corporations...IMHO people might want to do a little more critical thinking on their own and give up the horde mentality.

reply to post by boymonkey74


I've read several articles that said he admitted that him and his brother were at fault. Now I haven't heard testimony from him stating that and if a jury finds him not guilty then i'd let it go. I have yet to see anything anywhere that makes me believe this was a full conspiracy commited by other persons and NOT him and his brother. If found not guilty then blast his face all over teenbeat but until then.......

Right now in this time he is said to be half responsible....the public knows this, all conspiracy theorys aside. Even innocent until proven guilty doesn't make this cover right. The cover doesn't ask the question if he is guilty or innocent, it doesn't make one think maybe just maybe he is innocent instead it takes the stand that "hey he is a looker and those little teenieboppers are going to eat this up" Our society now glorifies killing, and hurting others. This cover says "hey it's okay to be a mass murderer as long as you look good while doing it"

Rolling Stones has their right to publish it but I have every right to think they are disgusting scum for doing so. If it was one of their children that died in that bombing they never would have done a cover as disgusting as this one but it wasn't, and sadly in this day and age we lack empathy for others. Unless of course are they are better looking than the average folks.

My friends on Facebook and many others are freaking out over this but I take no issue with it.

This image had been used by many media-sources and I'm almost certain many "don't know his name": it's a way to connect visually with a potential reader, to generate interest for their story, and to do what LOTS of journalisn does or should do: promote discussion and independent thought!

Last time I checked although things do change rapidly these days, we are free to publish, write, read, and buy whatever "materials" attract is...I sure don't need even more censorship.

I tend to agree: I'm not sure "what" the whole story even IS with the "bombing" and many other current happenings.

reply to post by irishchic


... which is the inherent problem with social media. Too reactionary on a conversational level and not enough analytical thought.

That's the media for you. Trying to put a face on terrorism.

"Never again will I ever buy a copy of Rolling Stone,"

People buy magazines you can read for free on the internet? Who knew?

From the editor:

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. –THE EDITORS

And they're right. For as long as they've been around, this is what they do: Reflect the current culture and what goes on in it. People need to stop reading more into than what's there. It's a commentary on current affairs. That's all.

Rock stars get on the cover to show people that a band has arrived or has did something socially relevant, or just to show people that they're still kicking.They're glorified. People like the Boston Bomber get on the cover because they already did something that has people talking. There's no glorification here, this is just something to get people talking about it and to sell magazines.

People really need to lighten up.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Rolling Stone says he's the Bomber but ironically enough he's pleading Not Guilty.

I would like to ask them why no discussion about how their top journalist was assassinated?

Originally posted by silo13
In 2012 Obama was on the cover of TIME as 'man of the year'.

Now this guy on Rolling Stones.

Ask yourself who's responsible for more deaths the former or the latter.

Somehow Rolling Stone's doesn't look so bad anymore does it.

Rolling Stone has kissed Obama's ring by putting him on the cover eight times.

A record equaled only by John Lennon.

Their slant makes the leaning tower of Pisa look upright.

Adolf Hitler was on the cover of Time Magazine.
Just sayin'.

People will always find something to bi**h about.

reply to post by isyeye

Exactly.

Like every other media outlet, they are doing everything in their power to convict him.

Why?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I think it's a brilliant cover concept that draws stark attention to the issue -- someone who looks happy, reasonably good-looking, and perhaps even personable in his body-language somehow got drawn in a direction none could imagine based on appearances.

It's brilliant.

I agree 100%. I have my fiancee picking me up one now because before I pass judgement on a silly picture, I want the CONTENT. I understand as people we look at the pretty picture first before seeing whats behind it, propping it up, and isn't that how we get in so much trouble?

I've been on this site for a while, posted once or twice years ago, and feel we ( the site and humanity) has lost sight. I mean.. look at us, we bicker over the use of an image. An image of a attractive youth who looks, well lets face it, innocent. And from what I've been told ( soon to actually READ), that's the idea behind the story, how an innocent youth got lost and did a horrible thing.

And watch it ya'll.... there's a dangerous road your walking down here. Trying to boycott a publication over a picture of a human being you find offensive because of his actions. Why, because it stirs an emotion? It angers you? It UPSETS you? Well, since the people have spoken, lets make sure nothing that can be deemed offensive is seen again, and we have a brand new governmet branch JUST for that.

reply to post by Rocker2013


I second that %100. Furthermore, I'll be the first to have the lunacy to claim the kids complete innocence. We've yet to hear his side to the story whatsoever. It's all been bull# notes given to folks to read to the media. I'm not so freakin gullible, sorry. Two suspects dead? One barely survived? I need some proof or at least a legitimate confession before I go anywhere near this bandwagon. Wake up America. The game's getting as audacious as it is dangerous. If this kid gets a fair trail I might have a droplet of hope in America again.

reply to post by Swills


I knew he wasn't going to plead guilty. The whole thing stinks. But do you have a link to where you got the information about his plea? I've been searching for something about that.

The big deal is that he hasn't gone to trial yet.

Mass media is totally #ed up.

I'd bet the journalist didn't even read the arraignment.

I didn't either, but that's not my job. I did read the description of the part which he pled "not guilty", repeatedly, over and over again, until all these preposterous charges were read to him. I'd like to know from where in hell's place did they pull so much bull# about that week of 15/04/2013.

Let's not forget the leading FBI Agent in charge of Boston: "look at these official pictures". OFFICIAL PICTURES. Obviously we're not in the 70's anymore. Some blurry picture? How didn't anyone, in all the 16+ intelligence agencies of the United States of America, IN FOUR DAYS OF INVESTIGATION, at least look at the files from BOSTON RESIDENTS who might be associated with terrorism? How many more, BESIDES TAMERLAN TSARNEV HIMSELF, could show up in their databases? Especially the ones at such high-level that even Russian intelligence was aware of them? That's the amount of bull# they pulled.

Sorry for the rant, but that week pisses me off. If this was properly looked at, the whole house of cards that is the War on Terror would crumble.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Arrest PHOTOS: New Pictures Emerge From Boston Bombing Suspect Manhunt

A Massachusetts State Police officer has released never-before-seen photos of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, which show him bloodied and bruised as sniper teams take aim at his head. Sgt. Sean Murphy, a tactical photographer with the state police, handed over the photos to Boston Magazine on Thursday. He released them because he was furious with Rolling Stone for running the now-infamous cover photo of Tsarnaev that many say glamorizes the Boston bombing suspect. He told the magazine that he wanted to counter the message he says Rolling Stone conveys.

www.huffingtonpost.com...