TBD

TBD on Ning

And I said what the hell but I was truly thinking the other one!!!!!!!http://t.now.msn.com/rolling-stone-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-cover-criticized

Views: 399

Replies to This Discussion

Here's another problem with the condemnation of RS to consider: The same "patriots" bitching about RS's cover don't say a word when conservative-leaning "news" sources like the Weekly Standard or FAUXNews smear Tsarnev's picture all over creation - Only when the "dirty leftie rag" Rolling Stone does it.

The "outrage" is more of an attack on non-right wing journalism than it is any real distress over who was put on the cover. Yes, some folks in Boston are genuinely upset - But that doesn't mean that they're thinking clearly about the whole thing, or that the wingnut propaganda machine wouldn't exploit their pain for it's own purposes. Remember, these are the same bastards who are still flogging the "heroes" of 9/11, 12 years later - But looked the other way when the GOP congress voted to reduce or eliminate the funding to care for their 9/11-related health issues.

i see your point snagg but i don't think it really has anything to do with rollin stone leanin left or right .. i think some people are upset that tzrarnov is on the cover and made to look like a rock star .. of course if they read the article it might make more sense to them as cresty said .. but for some the pain of it all is still too real .. i don't disagree about the gop denyin benefits to 911 health problems but i don't see the two as related .. that might make a good next cover . a picture of the gop and how they're denyin benefits to those who really need them.. ..but maybe rollin stone ain't the right place for that .. its not really a political rag .. i'm surprised they went out on a limb with tszarnov .. i mean ain't this the week that kim kardashian had her baby ?? thats the kinda shit they usually peddle ..  

Actually, RS has had a hard kernel of extensive political coverage for over forty years - It's just more famous for covering rock music, hip-hop, modern American culture and a dozen other things that conservatives hate.

I don't even read RS anymore, because it's too glossy and mainstream, so don't think that I'm defending it in itself; I'm just annoyed by this whole horseshit wingnut attack on RS, that tries to say that if a magazine that they don't like uses the same photo that FOXNews smeared all over it's weekend coverage - As part of the "How DARE They !!!" phony outrage campaign - Well, I really shouldn't have to comment any further. If you can't or don't see the glaring hypocrisy, then that's on you, not me...

As for your "i think some people are upset that tzrarnov is on the cover and made to look like a rock star" argument - People who are that easily upset, unwilling to examine the whole story or flat-out dishonest about their motives, have no goddamn business trying to convince the rest of the country that they're wise, politically informed and that their political and cultural views are the ones that MUST be followed. I'M not the one here insulting the memories of Boston's suffering - The CONSERVATIVE MEDIA is doing that themselves, by blowing this whole thing up into a controversy, callously exploiting an emotional issue while pretending to examine it, while being careful to leave out all those inconvenient mitigating facts that would derail the angle of their story.

We as a nation have never moved forward when we deal with touchy issues by whining whenever they're brought up or demanding censorship when any person or institution decides to publicly confront them. RS is hardly the fire-breathing standard of the left that it used to be, but it's still a damn sight more honest and forthright than "Fox And Friends" will ever be.

The Manson cover happened in 1974, several years after the horrific crimes.  It has only been a few months since hundreds of people in Boston were wounded, some mortally, others critically and several entire cities was held hostage for many hours while he was hunted down.  I don't dispute the magazines right to publish and write about anything they choose, and I have no doubt it was a good article.   But the timing of the article, which can add no new information just more speculation, was ill conceived and poorly timed.  I will not add to their coffers in any way by reading the article, it is the only power I have right now.   

they have a right to publish...and you have the right to not buy it and not read it....kind of the same with tv and movies etc....you don't have to ban stuff...just don't reward it and they encourage the mentally defective by making this clown the coverboy

Well then, T2 - Exactly when IS anybody allowed to address a sensitive topic ? Maybe we should never speak about Pearl Harbor, because I know a couple of elderly vets who still get cranked up whenever the topics of Pearl harbor, World War II or even Japan itself are brought up - And we sure don't ever want to hurt anybody's feelings now, do we ?.

Recommending the refusal to even discuss an emotional - and pressing - issue, because it might "hurt the feelings" of those who were most impacted by it, does a disservice to the rest of the nation, who might very well have another Tsarev lurking in our midst.

This whole 'WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW !!! NOT THIS WAY !!!" crap sounds to me like when the NRA tries to sweep another mass slaying under the rug by claiming that "Now is not the time to discuss an 'emotional issue' like hideous gun violence from which we reap billions of dollars." I'm truly and genuinely sorry that the Tsarnevs killed people - But we won't prevent it from happening again by hiding under our blankets and refusing to talk about it or to examine it from every possible angle.

Besides - The conservative talking point that "We must RESPECT the victim's feelings at this time" - ? Funny, I thought conservatives were all about hating the "culture of victimization", like when they screamed for the largely black population of New Orleans to "get over it" whenever the topics of a conservative-led FEMA's disastrous ineptitude were being brought up. Strange, isn't it, that conservatives keep trying to demand that America should only "respect the feelings of the victims" concerning only issues that anger or embarrass conservatives ?

A Boston cop responded to the outcry with pictures of Tsarnaev as he was captured:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/inde...

Another unwise move in my opinion.  But I hope the officer is not reprimanded to severely for it.  One of the things about this tragic and horrible event, was the amount of positive energy and effort that resulted from it.  The focus has been on the "good", the efforts of the first responders, the spontaneous cheering and applauding for the cops and FBI that worked so hard for days to capture the suspect, the efforts of the general public that not only helped out those impacted that day, but that swarmed back to support the businesses that were closed for so long due to the clean up and investigation.  The warmth and kindness of the folks in Boston to the rest of the Marathon runners.  And the generosity of people everywhere that donated money to help those injured by this act of terror.  I think it has all been an incredible showing of how we can come together in a positive way that somehow helps to balance the evil that exist in this world.  I don't want to see the focus shift to that evil...bad things happen, but as a society, we should not do things that could elevate it to celebrity status. 

well so far i haven't read the article but do you really think they were tryin to make a rock star outta this guy .. i agree that a lot of the focus should be on the positive .. no argument there from me at all .. but somehow to leave this asshole in the dark is somehow wrong .. i think back to osama bin ladin and how he tried to blow up the world trade center the first time with a truck full of explosives but he didn't have enough dynamite and it just shook the place a little and that was that .. so everybody pretty much just forgot about him . til the next time .. and there's no forgettin that .. now i'm not sayin we could have prevented what happened but you have to admit bin ladin was way off our radar and he took us by surprise .. i think anyplace these fucktard bombers showup we should not only do everything to round em all up but put em under a microscope to see what makes em tick .. see what it is that made em go apeshit and who knows .. maybe we can stay a step ahead of them sometimes .. maybe not all the time but even if its just half the time isn't that a step in the right direction ? and everytime they foiled a plot so far its because everyday average citizens said hey somethin is fishy here .. so i'm for all the information that we can get out there the better we can nail these bastards .. even if they have to use the cover of a rollin stone .. cause kids see shit all the time too .. we just have to get em to say somethin when they do .. even if the guy looks kinda dreamy .. cause this ain't no party this ain't no disco this ain't no foolin around .. 

NO. The article definitely did not make a rock star out of him.  I think the furor is coming from people who did not read the article.  If you read the article, the picture makes sense--and it says right on the cover that he is a MONSTER.  He can't help it if he has a beautiful face.  It's reality that one so beautiful can do something so horrible.

like a fallen angel huh cresty ? and we all know how shitty that turned out don't we ?? 

Well, it's an interesting debate and whether we agree or not, I appreciate everyone taking the time to air well thought out responses and reactions. No matter where we stand on the earth, everyone has their own view of the sun.

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service