Explosion at the Boston Marathon

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

Speaking of "alleged"...

Couldn't he, hypothetically, sue Rolling Stone for labeling him as "The Bomber".
Everyone knows he did it, but isn't there still a law that they always have to say "Alleged" Bomber?

Nah, I think you can call someone whatever you want in this country (US). It'd be like if they had a Bieber cover titled, "The ######bag." I'm pretty sure he can't sue for that.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Nah, I think you can call someone whatever you want in this country (US). It'd be like if they had a Bieber cover titled, "The ######bag." I'm pretty sure he can't sue for that.

Defamation is defamation, if it is proven false then someone is likely going to be sued. A ######bag is something that can be debated or even justified, but calling someone the bomber if they are not the bomber is likely really bad for someone's bank account. In other words, no you cannot call someone whatever you want.

Not that I think they are false or anything...

[Flamesoholic]

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.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flamesoholic

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.

A hero? Really? They called him a monster right on the cover.

The guy is going to be in jail for the rest of his life if he isn't executed, so "sex symbol", "rock star" and "limelight" aren't things he's ever going to enjoy.

The Rolling Stone magazine with his picture on the cover probably isn't on his approved reading list either. If you have an image in your head of this lunatic gloating over this magazine cover, which I agree would be really annoying, I think you can forget it.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

The article is called "Jahar's World." Odd that they would use his nickname.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The guy is going to be in jail for the rest of his life if he isn't executed, so "sex symbol", "rock star" and "limelight" aren't things he's ever going to enjoy.

Manson enjoyed much of that.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Surprised this hasn't popped up yet:

It's been brought up. CBC mentioned the outrage that cover caused and also how that issue set sales records.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A hero? Really? They called him a monster right on the cover.

The guy is going to be in jail for the rest of his life if he isn't executed, so "sex symbol", "rock star" and "limelight" aren't things he's ever going to enjoy.

The Rolling Stone magazine with his picture on the cover probably isn't on his approved reading list either. If you have an image in your head of this lunatic gloating over this magazine cover, which I agree would be really annoying, I think you can forget it.

I think that's actually has to be a bit punishing to him, in a way, to be on the cover of Rolling Stone and getting all of that attention that he will never enjoy. It's probably like winning the Power Ball lottery and being stuck in prison for the rest of your life.

I hope he sees the cover and suffers with that.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Super Nintendo Chalmers

It's been brought up. CBC mentioned the outrage that cover caused

I meant in this thread. Didn't see it yet.

[Drake]

Today's front cover of the Boston Herald:

[Ozy_Flame]

I'll bet my left nut that if this guy wasn't a 19-year-old good looking kid, this Rolling Stone cover wouldn't have been as big of an issue. Or at least Rolling Stone wouldn't have put his picture up. The magazine has already admitted to targeting their demographic.

[JeanLucPicard]

There is actually nothing wrong with them publishing his picture on the cover. The bias exists in our minds. Maybe we should read the article instead of act like sheep. Just because Rolling Stone normally has celebrities on their cover, doesn't mean that by publishing his picture on the cover, they're treating him like one.

[Tinordi]

I thought it was excellent journalism to run that cover. The point they're making is that we need to start understanding terrorists as people if we are to understand terrorism itself. Only those who live in the most black and white world would be upset with this.

[Erick Estrada]

Man I hate it when mass murderers are glorified in the media. The only pictures of these guys that should ever be shown on a magazine cover is the kid in his orange coveralls in prison. What's next a Cosmopolitan magazine spread of Jodi Arias fashining clothes?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JeanLucPicard

There is actually nothing wrong with them publishing his picture on the cover. The bias exists in our minds. Maybe we should read the article instead of act like sheep. Just because Rolling Stone normally has celebrities on their cover, doesn't mean that by publishing his picture on the cover, they're treating him like one.

Except the fact that half of these people do these sorts of crime for the infamy that follows. Simply feeding them when you put them on the cover of the Rolling Stone. If you can't act or sing but crave to be famous simply commit a heinous crime.

Just think about the victims that lost limbs or family that have to live with seeing the man that commited it on the cover of the Rolling Stone that is normally reserved for entertainment superstars. Disgusting.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I thought it was excellent journalism to run that cover. The point they're making is that we need to start understanding terrorists as people if we are to understand terrorism itself. Only those who live in the most black and white world would be upset with this.

They used a picture of him that glorifies him as a sex symbol.

As Erick said, it should be him in his orange jumpsuit wasting away behind bars, or if they were going to understand him, use a picture of him as a kid in more innocent times.

Complete and utter attempt to get more magazine purchases with the photo they chose. Very Jim Morrison-esque.

[Daradon]

Have to agree with the general statement. Rolling Stone obviously did it to be controversial (or more aptly, generate fake contoversy) and pump sales. But it's hardly surprising. News and publications have been doing this for years. As many have mentioned, it's more indicitive of our society as a whole than it is the example of a bad decision by Rolling Stone.

My only concern is the fact this case is terrorism. In a paradigm that is actively trying to recruit, this type of glamorization my actually encourage others.

Of course they have been saying that about media for year for all types of violence and vice and statistically it's untrue, so, maybe not.

[Tinordi]

Complete and utter attempt to get more magazine purchases with the photo they chose.

Yes and good on them. Hopefully people read the article, of how a seemingly nice and popular kid slid down a track to becoming a dangerous criminal. That's the lesson here, we need to start understanding how this phenomenom of alienation and radicalism infects seemingly normal people.

Or unless you think we're all so mindlessly impressionable that a picture of a terrorist will somehow make us think that it's "cool" to bomb? Give me a break, what a parochial deluded view of society.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Or unless you think we're all so mindlessly impressionable that a picture of a terrorist will somehow make us think that it's "cool" to bomb? Give me a break, what a parochial deluded view of society.

Like all of the Columbine copycats? You better believe we are mindlessly impressionable.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yes and good on them. Hopefully people read the article, of how a seemingly nice and popular kid slid down a track to becoming a dangerous criminal. That's the lesson here, we need to start understanding how this phenomenom of alienation and radicalism infects seemingly normal people.

Or unless you think we're all so mindlessly impressionable that a picture of a terrorist will somehow make us think that it's "cool" to bomb? Give me a break, what a parochial deluded view of society.

Whats the lesson? Don't have a totally crazy older brother who you look up to? Its funny cause the picture has probably cost them a lot of people who might have read the article. This was poorly thought out by Rolling Stone, most people aren't going to look at the cover and think "Hmm, could be an interesting read", they think "The same magazine that put Britney on the cover 3 times in one year and has thrown Bieber on there is putting that scum#### on there?".

[Erick Estrada]

On the bright side a lot of big retailers are bycotting the magazine, artists denouncing them, and it's probably going to cost them advertising as well. Rolling Stone wanted attention and they are getting it for all the wrong reasons that will likely cost them more than it was worth in the end.