Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
What were they going for? Jim Morrison was a rock star who had been dead for 10 years when that cover came out. Where is the connection? Is it the curly hair?
I'm surprised at all the outrage over this. Now sure, they are courting controversy and sales with the choice of cover photo, but that's kind of the deal in the media. Rolling Stone isn't alone, and they didn't invent it. And it's not like they did a photo shoot here, going into the jailhouse with professional lighting and a makeup artist. It's probably a screengrab from a facebook page.
Really, it all seems like "how dare they show this kid looking like a human being!" even though they call him the bomber right on the cover, and a monster in the story (or at least the press release).
Like someone mentioned above, would devil horns and a curly moustache been more appropriate?
|
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder because from my point of view, I see them using a photo that to me (and obviously to others), resembles a rock star who was well known for his attractiveness and sex appeal.
This dirt bag is not a rock star, is not a hero and is certainly not a sex symbol, but they are using that photo in hopes that people make that connection. It's sleazy and a disgusting publicity stunt on ROlling Stone's part.
You are right though, they aren't the first ones to do this kind of thing and they won't be the last. That doesn't mean however that we can't be repulsed by their decision to run this photo on their cover knowing full well that many people would see the connection to Morrison's cover.
This guy isn't just a bad boy singer or actor who's gotten himself into trouble. He's a killer and a killer who is desperate for the exact kind of limelight that this cover provides for him. His face should never be seen on a cover of a magazine like Rolling Stone where the usual covers are of glamorized sex symbol rock stars. I find it tasteless and offensive that they are trying to glamorize a murdering little punk.