|
Post by Panther on Jul 18, 2013 18:52:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 18, 2013 21:36:08 GMT -5
Generally I'm a moderate politically, but when it comes to this issue I think it will be the beginning of the end for Jan Wenker's magazine. Regardless of their purpose, it's just so damned tasteless. The cover of Time is different- it is a news magazine. They should show a photo of the people killed or the several people with their lower legs gone but for some bone. This creep is no rock star.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 18, 2013 22:27:53 GMT -5
I think the story is about how this guy with rock star good looks and what could very well be a charmed life, got screwed up by extreme religious fanaticism. It paints a sad, tragic story. Is this not a relevant story for todays times?
A few years back they were saying that the end of history was upon us, history pretty much being the story of war and conquest. The world could become a utopia where everything could be reasoned out. Disputes and conflicts could be settled peacefully. Then 911 happened.
Religious fanaticism, destroying the promise of a charmed world. That's it in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 18, 2013 23:48:14 GMT -5
I have yet to read the story, but I'm leaning heavily towards this is a big deal about nothing. When the first pictures of the guy surfaced, I wondered if there were girls who would be fantasizing about him because of his looks. He has always looked like a rock star since the first pics have come out, so this is nothing new that Rolling Stone has done. Second, if it's a profile of the guy .. and from what I've read it is, they did that for Charles Manson. (In fact, I think they interviewed him.) Besides being a music magazine, they are also a news magazine. I have a lot of problem with RS's Rock Hall, but this isn't a reason to hurl poutrage. The headline makes it pretty clear they aren't worshipping him.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 19, 2013 0:17:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 19, 2013 0:46:50 GMT -5
I have yet to read the story, but I'm leaning heavily towards this is a big deal about nothing. When the first pictures of the guy surfaced, I wondered if there were girls who would be fantasizing about him because of his looks. He has always looked like a rock star since the first pics have come out, so this is nothing new that Rolling Stone has done. Second, if it's a profile of the guy .. and from what I've read it is, they did that for Charles Manson. (In fact, I think they interviewed him.) Besides being a music magazine, they are also a news magazine. I have a lot of problem with RS's Rock Hall, but this isn't a reason to hurl poutrage. The headline makes it pretty clear they aren't worshipping him. I think the article is normal journalism. My problem is that he does in fact look like a rock star on the cover regardless of what the article says. Girls will see him as a "bad boy" like Charlie Sheen or Mick Jagger, not an animal like Hitler or Manson. It's a big deal here on the east coast, where we have generally been the punching bags. I won't personally boycott the magazine though I haven't bought one in years, but it is going over very badly here.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 19, 2013 1:10:32 GMT -5
Haven't received my issue, yet, but I want to present a different take on the cover. First, I don't have a problem with them doing what they want. It's their magazine. So, the market will speak for itself. No manner of censorship will be needed. I also do not distinguish them from any other magazine, news or otherwise.
Magazines, regardless of what is in between the front and back cover, have to compel non-subscribers to pick up the magazine to read what's inside. How many of us have bought a magazine because the Beatles or a Beatle was on the cover - only to find that there really wasn't much of an article about them. Other times, perhaps there was an article about the Beatles or someone or something we were interested in, but never knew about it because someone we had no interest in, say Justin Bieber or the Kardashians, was on the cover.
Rolling Stone was not very smart here. They have a really good article to read. They want people to read it. So what do they do? They put that guy on the cover. They pretty much will be getting the opposite effect. Instead of people buying the magazine to read the article, based on the cover, people will instead skip the article because of repulsion toward the cover.
This marketing ploy is backfiring. If they really wanted people to buy the magazine and have access to the article, they should have had a semi-nude Jennifer Aniston or a hunky Hugh Jackman or something like that. THAT would have gotten people to buy the magazine. You know the saying, "do no harm"? Well, in the business world, sales are never to be harmed. It will be interesting to see how this marketing mistake will translate in regards to revenue, at least for this edition. Think back to when John was killed. Would any magazine have sold as many copies as they did if Chapman was on the cover instead of John?
PS Oh, I forgot. Sometimes, magazine editions will have different covers, depending on the city or region. Sports Illustrated does it all the time - like having one cover for one city with a team in the Super Bowl and another cover for the other city with their team on the cover. I'm wondering how someone at Rolling Stone who makes the big bucks to know these things, didn't think of having a different cover for the racks of New England.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 19, 2013 8:50:12 GMT -5
First of all, I don't feel his name or his image should be featured in the thread.
Is RS "justified"? well, they have a right to do it -- but morally they are indecent and insulting, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to cancel my RS subscription because of this abomination. Oh, wait -- I forgot -- I don't have and never have had a subscription to RS. Well then, others who do have a subscription and who may be offended by this cover ought to cancel their subscriptions. Maybe a lot of aspiring maniacal youths out there can now see this and realize that they, too, can become another popular American Heartthrob, if they blow some limbs off people. But let us hope not.
This morning on the news there was a report showing actual arrest photos of this vermin, featuring him full of blood and surrendering, with a dot on his head from a well-aimed police laser gun. A policemen put these photos out there to counteract the offending RS cover. So what happens? The policeman is being suspended, as he "had no authorization to release those photos", and he will be disciplined, maybe even fired. What a modern world, huh? Publications like RS are free to glorify terrorists as though they were GQ models... but a person showing the terrorist as a pile of defeated garbage? He is suspended and risks losing his job. Nice priorities we've got in this country.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 19, 2013 9:00:08 GMT -5
No thanks. It was wrong of them to feature anything about this beast, and just his being on the cover alone is a reason for me not to play into their hands and read their work. Why should I partake?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 19, 2013 10:41:25 GMT -5
. . . Why should I partake? Because it's interesting to learn how people got to the point where they did what they did. Whether it's Tsarnaev, the Columbine shooters, Manson Family members, Oswald, Germans in WWII who were "just following orders," and even those Baptists who go around protesting gay funerals, it's all curious and compelling. I think we let people like that off the hook when we simply label them as "monsters" or "fuck-ups" or "malcontents" or "Jesus Freaks" and then wait for the next "whack jobs" to do something horrendous. Without understanding the "why's" of a person's hideous act, we lose the opportunity to learn about ourselves, for anyone of us is capable of doing quite awful things. They are us.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 19, 2013 11:07:47 GMT -5
. . . Why should I partake? Because it's interesting to learn how people got to the point where they did what they did. Whether it's Tsarnaev, the Columbine shooters, Manson Family members, Oswald, Germans in WWII who were "just following orders," and even those Baptists who go around protesting gay funerals, it's all curious and compelling. I think we let people like that off the hook when we simply label them as "monsters" or "fuck-ups" or "malcontents" or "Jesus Freaks" and then wait for the next "whack jobs" to do something horrendous. Without understanding the "why's" of a person's hideous act, we lose the opportunity to learn about ourselves, for anyone of us is capable of doing quite awful things. They are us. I'd like to think this monster is not you or me, sayne. But realistically, we are never going to be able to understand and stop these acts. We've been trying for decades, and there will always be evil in the world to some degree. It's almost as if evil is destined to be part of the natural human condition, along with good, forever. But getting back to Rolling Stone, I just feel it was irresponsible and outrageous of them to put this guy on their cover, and with that move they have lost the privilege of having me (and many other Americans) read and see what they've got to say. It's a matter of principle. And if the truth be told, it's not like RS put this guy's face on their cover "to teach us something and make a profound bid for understanding" -- they just did it to sell magazines. I will admit with humility that I have been interested in learning more about John Lennon's killer over the decades. But for me this is only because i am such a fan of lennon's and want to try and unravel it. However, I still would condemn putting Lennon's killer on a magazine cover like a glorified star.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 19, 2013 13:02:36 GMT -5
. . . I'd like to think this monster is not you or me, sayne . . . But, that is the point. The potential to do evil is in all of us. That has been known for ages. It is behind the concept of "original sin." It is important to know why a normal kid, living a normal life came to do what he did. It's also important to know why a normal person, living a normal life "goes postal" after losing a job. And, it's also important to know why others do not "go postal." You are right. Evil will always be around and people will always do horrendous things. But, the point is not to eliminate it, but to try to reduce it. It's not about being perfect. It's about being closer to being perfect. If we can NOT look at these people as being monsters, we can come closer to understanding. Understanding is not forgiving. Understanding is about allowing ourselves to see ourselves in others and to try to change those circumstances which draw out the evil that lurks in us. You are right about the possibility that there is some kid out there who will see the Rolling Stone cover and might think it's cool and may want to seek the same kind of fame. But, there are millions of other kids who will not. We need to find out what triggers and how to reduce them.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 19, 2013 13:27:15 GMT -5
No thanks. Boycotting RS for putting this piece of garbage on its cover. It's a good magazine, but this was wrong. If for no other reason than to respect the victims of his crime. Only way to object is to refuse to buy the issue. If they want to post an article, so be it, but they put his photo on the cover to sell the magazine. Cheap shot RS. Same as when you did it with Charles Manson all those years ago. For me it's the same as if they put the piece of garbage that murdered John Lennon on the cover in order to post an article on why he did what he did. Putting a living monster on the cover of a magazine is not in good taste. At the very least, if he was dead like his brother, he would not get to see his image or name glorified in print. Shame on Rolling Stone.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 19, 2013 17:14:32 GMT -5
. . . Only way to object is to refuse to buy the issue . . . That's fair and supports my thesis.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 19, 2013 18:06:40 GMT -5
All this talk about boycotting it makes me want to read it.
That said, he is a handsome guy. Should fry up real nicely.
Gary Gilmore was a good looking guy too on that Rolling Stone cover. He was so famous when he went before the firing squad.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 19, 2013 18:21:57 GMT -5
Just got my issue delivered today. Can't wait for it to be a collectors item.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 20, 2013 2:02:33 GMT -5
Just got my issue delivered today. Can't wait for it to be a collectors item. Yea, like the autograph John Lennon gave his killer a few hours before he was gunned down in front of his home.... Amazing what some people call "collectors items".....
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 7:06:57 GMT -5
Just got my issue delivered today. Can't wait for it to be a collectors item. Yea, like the autograph John Lennon gave his killer a few hours before he was gunned down in front of his home.... Amazing what some people call "collectors items"..... Yeah, maybe sayne can make some money off the blood and limbs of the bombing victims from Boston when he sells his "collector's item". Maybe it's okay with sayne because most of the Boston victims, if not all, were white.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 20, 2013 10:29:53 GMT -5
Yea, like the autograph John Lennon gave his killer a few hours before he was gunned down in front of his home.... Amazing what some people call "collectors items"..... Yeah, maybe sayne can make some money off the blood and limbs of the bombing victims from Boston when he sells his "collector's item". Maybe it's okay with sayne because most of the Boston victims, if not all, were white. I think sayne was just trying to get some here riled up, which he succeeded at.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 10:34:10 GMT -5
I think sayne was just trying to get some here riled up, which he succeeded at. Sure, I'm riled if someone glorifies this magazine or the bomber himself. Which is how we should be in this case. I don't understand this whole mentality -- "oh, he was trying to rile people, ha ha he succeeded", "oh, it's just a gag but some people cannot see that". This is a message board with writing, not in-person voice tones and facial expressions. So for one thing, how are we supposed to know when someone is serious or not? Is EVERYTHING to be taken as a joke, or some tactic just to get people riled up? Interesting too is that when 'I' do something like that, I am considered a "troll", "troublemaker", etc....
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 20, 2013 10:41:01 GMT -5
Yeah, maybe sayne can make some money off the blood and limbs of the bombing victims from Boston when he sells his "collector's item". Maybe it's okay with sayne because most of the Boston victims, if not all, were white. I think sayne was just trying to get some here riled up, which he succeeded at. You are very wise, Grasshopper.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 20, 2013 10:45:00 GMT -5
. . . Interesting too is that when 'I' do something like that, I am considered a "troll", "troublemaker", etc.... It's about "considering the source." Two people can play the violin - one is honored for it, the other ridiculed. One's name is Itzak Perlman, the other Jack Benny. Have a good day, Jack.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 20, 2013 10:46:34 GMT -5
. . . Maybe it's okay with sayne because most of the Boston victims, if not all, were white. So were the bombers.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 11:09:25 GMT -5
. . . Interesting too is that when 'I' do something like that, I am considered a "troll", "troublemaker", etc.... It's about "considering the source." Two people can play the violin - one is honored for it, the other ridiculed. One's name is Itzak Perlman, the other Jack Benny. Have a good day, Jack. You are behaving like a troll. Yes, I am considering the source -- like you and your liberal anti-white agenda. You know, I am trying to work with you and am meeting you halfway on things in different discussions, but man, you really don't want to make the effort back.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 11:11:20 GMT -5
I wonder if they'd identify themselves as "white"? Even so, you know full well you'd be singing a whole different tune if the victims of the bombing just happened to be black.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 20, 2013 12:16:48 GMT -5
I think sayne was just trying to get some here riled up, which he succeeded at. Sure, I'm riled if someone glorifies this magazine or the bomber himself. Which is how we should be in this case. I don't understand this whole mentality -- "oh, he was trying to rile people, ha ha he succeeded", "oh, it's just a gag but some people cannot see that". This is a message board with writing, not in-person voice tones and facial expressions. So for one thing, how are we supposed to know when someone is serious or not? Is EVERYTHING to be taken as a joke, or some tactic just to get people riled up? Interesting too is that when 'I' do something like that, I am considered a "troll", "troublemaker", etc.... Well Joe, I wasn't necessarily going "ha ha", if you recall, I was one of the first on this thread to object to the Rolling Stone article mosly because of poor taste. Personally I don't see sayne as the "collector" type and instantly picked up on the jist of his post. So to quote you, you couldn't see my "facial" expression either. I was trying to keep people from throwing unnecessary jabs.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 20, 2013 12:26:51 GMT -5
Yeah, collectors have to pay almost $7 on e-bay now for a Rolling Stone fetal John Lennon and Yoko issue.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 13:53:23 GMT -5
[Personally I don't see sayne as the "collector" type and instantly picked up on the jist of his post. I got that. It's just that I don't feel it's a laughing matter. My reply to him was in kind.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 20, 2013 14:16:53 GMT -5
I don't quite get this. You buy it or you don't. Boycotting it says you're not going to buy it but you are going to make sure people know you are not going to buy it. And I guess you're saying you are not going to buy the magazine again. I don't think I ever bought one so I may have a problem boycotting it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 14:21:41 GMT -5
I don't quite get this. You buy it or you don't. Boycotting it says your not going to buy it but you are going to make sure people know you are not going to buy it. And I guess you're saying you are not going to buy the magazine again. I don't think I ever bought one so I may have a problem boycotting it. I never went for the "if you don't like the show, just change the channel" (or "just boycott the magazine") thing. Why? Because me not buying the mag or ignoring the TV program is not the problem. The problem is the easily-influenced people out there who may get inspired by said TV show/movie/magazine. I still have to live in the same world with them, as it all deteriorates due to these garbage things, ruining the masses around me. Whether I watch it/read it, is irrelevant to that outcome that is beyond my control.
|
|