What is Rolling Stone thinking?

[David McLaughlin]

I think that most people are upset because the pic they chose was of some good looking kid. Had the pic been of hime when he was arrested, bloody and all, no one would be talking about it. He looks like a rock star.

[Joe Bob]

He will heal up and make a pretty jailhouse wife.

[Mike80911]

The cover of Rolling Stone should be reserved for people relevant to the music world. That is the difference between that POS mag and all of the POS so called Newspapers. The people that commit these acts are looking for recognition and putting him on the cover he got what he wanted. About a month ago on that other idiot Howard Stern's radio show they asked woman who they would rather sleep with Howard or the Boston bomber? Most of the woman asked said the Boston bomber because he was very good looking.
How about we stop using these terrorists names and pictures when printing stories about them or reporting on the events on the evening news. They can just simply say that a terrorist did this or that and never show their face or say their name.

[rusnak]

Why would I start caring about what a smelly hippie thinks, says, or does NOW?

[speeder]

And here I just thought it was Josh Grobin.

[livi]

Its all about the money - from both RS and 7/11. Figure out what approach will sell most copies, create better PR and ultimately make more money for each company.

[Baz]

Hypocrites.......why not give equal coverage to American terrorists?

[Baz]

I think they are biased......

[Baz]

[Baz]

They are only interested in selling magazines.....nothing to see here folks....same old corporate theme........move along.....

[widgeon13]

Next comes "Man of the Year".

Attention whores.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by David McLaughlin

I think that most people are upset because the pic they chose was of some good looking kid. Had the pic been of hime when he was arrested, bloody and all, no one would be talking about it. He looks like a rock star.

+1
I have no problem with putting him on the cover, but putting up a flattering pic of a criminal is irresponsible.

[creaturecat]

Perhaps the article has some merit re: young adults going sideways, embracing terrorism.
The rock star picture gives me the impression that he could have "had it all", yet chose to maim/kill people.

[CHICKS]

Originally Posted by David McLaughlin

I think that most people are upset because the pic they chose was of some good looking kid. Had the pic been of hime when he was arrested, bloody and all, no one would be talking about it. He looks like a rock star.

[nota]

the cover picture is so much more important then the dead writer or how he was killed

you know this one

Was Michael Hastings' Car Hacked? Richard Clarke Says It's Possible

[BE911SC]

Rolling Stone was thinking the same thing they were thinking with their Charles Manson cover: "How can we sell more magazines." Time did the same thing with the dark image of O.J. Simpson during his trial. The business of any business is profit. If there had been an Internet and Twitter and all the other instant-message social media when RS published the Manson cover then perhaps there may have been an audible outcry? I agree with several posts in this thread pointing to the modern squeamishness and over-sensitivity of the public at large. We go into apoplectic fits over silly things nowadays that we basically would ignore 20+ years ago. I suppose 24/7/365 cable news feeds this kind of hysteria out of its own need to keep the public's attention--and thus generate lucrative advertising revenue. (At CNN it's about generating ad revenue through sensationalizing the news, regardless of how trivial the story is.) In the end it's about selling magazines, as Henry Luce could tell you 70 years ago, or generating ad revenue, as Ted Turner could have told you in 1980.

[DanielDudley]

Rolling Stone has been at the head of a number of serious news stories since about forever, and they tend to get their facts straight. If you get your news from Fox, and you don't like the NY Times, you won't like RS either.

The last article I read in RS was the HSBC Bank scandal report. Pretty basic, but fairly comprehensive. If you never read RS, what makes you think you are qualified to comment ?

[yazhound]

Originally Posted by DanielDudley

Rolling Stone has been at the head of a number of serious news stories since about forever, and they tend to get their facts straight. If you get your news from Fox, and you don't like the NY Times, you won't like RS either.

The last article I read in RS was the HSBC Bank scandal report. Pretty basic, but fairly comprehensive. If you never read RS, what makes you think you are qualified to comment ?

Hunter S., William Greider etc... lots of real news reporting, usually more comprehensive then the stuff comes out immediately after newsworthy event. More so than Fox News and its daily scripted messages and daily talking ne: preaching points.

RS has always had folks other than just musicians on cover.. and to the nay sayers.. start your own mag and put whoever you want on the cover.. Shish... the things folks get ticked at....

[techweenie]

Michael Hastings was the one who popped McChrystal out of a job with his RS story in 2010 for which he got death threats. He was on to a "huge" story when killed in a flaming car crash in June.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=michael+hastings+car+crash&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

So, yes, some people would like Rolling Stone to be just about fluff. Or at worst, more Politically Correct "news."

But RS has a long history of solid, independent reporting.

[BE911SC]

Matt Taibbi being one of the only people doing actual expose reports on the mass corruption on Wall Street. You won't read that in Time or Newsmax.