where's martin's? Boston bomber on the cover of the Rolling Stones

[markabilly]

Now that the Boston bomber, who "is a person after all" has done made it on the cover of da rolllllliiiing stooooooones, just gots da ask, Where's Martin??? Must be racism, is all I can think :confused: :confused: Okay, boys and girls, let us hear it..1 2 3, "we got golden fingers...we take all kind of pills to give us all kinda thrills....our smiling face...with a lotta sex....got a ole lady named cocaine katy...."..Dr Hook Cover Of The Rolling Stone - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJu6Up9w2Hc)

[Rudy Tamasz]

They've crossed the line this time. Should have known better.

[gadjo_dilo]

What's the big deal? It's just a picture. :confused:

[airshifter]

They've crossed the line this time. Should have known better.

I would imagine the article somehow excuses his actions and goes into some political drama about what the motivations are. It seems that Rolling Stone can take anything and make it political, with quite a slant in one direction.

[Starter]

I would imagine the article somehow excuses his actions and goes into some political drama about what the motivations are. It seems that Rolling Stone can take anything and make it political, with quite a slant in one direction.
Of course, that's their usual stance. The answer is not to say they shouldn't publish it. It's a free press and they can publish what ever they want. The answer is to not buy any issues and encourage others to do the same. You can also contact any advertisers. Their wallet is the place to show your displeasure.

[anthonyvop]

Of course, that's their usual stance. The answer is not to say they shouldn't publish it. It's a free press and they can publish what ever they want. The answer is to not buy any issues and encourage others to do the same. You can also contact any advertisers. Their wallet is the place to show your displeasure.


Stop it. Stop using Logic and freedom of choice. The Europeans might get upset.

[veeten]

And yet, this makes me ask one, simple question: did anyone actually read the article, in it's entirety, and then comment about it? With 'on the street' interviews, what one gleans from the participants is 'no, they didn't', making all this hubbub about the cover of said magazine nothing more than an exercise in faux-intellectualism.

[Jag_Warrior]

Couldn't resist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I predict massive sales for Rolling Stones. Controversy sells.

[ioan]

I would imagine the article somehow excuses his actions and goes into some political drama about what the motivations are. It seems that Rolling Stone can take anything and make it political, with quite a slant in one direction.

Is it really that bad if someone offers an alternative view to the mainstream thinking?!
Should we ban all those who provide diversity to our world?

[ioan]

Stop it. Stop using Logic and freedom of choice. The Europeans might get upset.

What about Rolling Stones' freedom of choice regarding their articles? Oh wait... :rolleyes:

[Starter]

Is it really that bad if someone offers an alternative view to the mainstream thinking?!
Should we ban all those who provide diversity to our world?
Yes we need more diversity. Let's encourage more people to bomb public places since the attention is what many of them crave.

[Starter]

What about Rolling Stones' freedom of choice regarding their articles? Oh wait... :rolleyes:
Short attention span today? Reread post four, which is what Tony was replying to - not to mention what he also said.

[gadjo_dilo]

Yes we need more diversity. Let's encourage more people to bomb public places since the attention is what many of them crave.

Sorry but since I am one of those ''upset Europeans'' who can't follow american logic, please make me understand. How can a photo encourage bombing places? I'm sure readers of that magazine have enough discernment to see what's good and what it's wrong. As for a suggestion that the guy was looking for publicity, what's the point since he's dead?

[ioan]

Yes we need more diversity. Let's encourage more people to bomb public places since the attention is what many of them crave.

You're a lost case.
Learn to read before writing such crazy comments.

[ioan]

Short attention span today? Reread post four, which is what Tony was replying to - not to mention what he also said.

I think you should re-read both that post and Vop's post, then think about it, then we can discuss it again.

[Starter]

I think you should re-read both that post and Vop's post, then think about it, then we can discuss it again.
Discussion with you is pretty much a lost cause. So I'll pass. Thank you.

[anthonyvop]

What about Rolling Stones' freedom of choice regarding their articles? Oh wait... :rolleyes:


Who is calling for the removal of the freedom of Rolling Stone putting anything on their cover?

I know I'm not.

[airshifter]

My wife came home from work today and had some info that pertains to this magazine issue. She works a couple days a week for a company that merchandises both their magazines and those from other companies in local stores.

It seems that the majority of local stores have decided not to sell this issue of Rolling Stone, and have elected to return all magazines sent for distribution.

[vhatever]

My wife came home from work today and had some info that pertains to this magazine issue. She works a couple days a week for a company that merchandises both their magazines and those from other companies in local stores.

It seems that the majority of local stores have decided not to sell this issue of Rolling Stone, and have elected to return all magazines sent for distribution.


They can always just buy Time magazine and get the same brand of slop.

[zako85]

And yet, this makes me ask one, simple question: did anyone actually read the article, in it's entirety, and then comment about it? With 'on the street' interviews, what one gleans from the participants is 'no, they didn't', making all this hubbub about the cover of said magazine nothing more than an exercise in faux-intellectualism.

I did not read the article, but I find it reprehensible for a magazine to use a scandalous cover image to entice people to read its articles.

[zako85]

What's the big deal? It's just a picture. :confused:

It's not an ordinary picture. It's a glamorization of a vicious terrorist with innocent blood on his hands.

[gadjo_dilo]

It's not an ordinary picture. It's a glamorization of a vicious terrorist with innocent blood on his hands.

Why is a cover of a. magazine a glamorization? :confused:

[vhatever]

Why is a cover of a. magazine a glamorization? :confused:

I don't think it's the cover itself, but the picture they chose. Also, i think the only known major criminal the Rolling stone had put on their cover before was Charles Manson. They didn't even use a picture for that, but had some kind of drawing.

[gadjo_dilo]

I don't think it's the cover itself, but the picture .

Come on........Last night I discussed this issue with some friends and one of them said that Tsarnaev has a very interesting and romantic face and this impressed him from the first moment.
But of course it doesn't mean he wasn't horrified of what T did or that he's tempted to follow his example.
I mean can't we see the facts through the filter of our intelligence? ( now I'm talking about the rest oof you 'cos definitely I lack this one :p ).

[airshifter]

Come on........Last night I discussed this issue with some friends and one of them said that Tsarnaev has a very interesting and romantic face and this impressed him from the first moment.
But of course it doesn't mean he wasn't horrified of what T did or that he's tempted to follow his example.
I mean can't we see the facts through the filter of our intelligence? ( now I'm talking about the rest oof you 'cos definitely I lack this one :p ).

It seems quite a few are offended for different reasons. I've heard that many are upset as they are trying to portray him as a "normal" guy. There was a story on the Yahoo home page about how many would have preferred to see him as seen during his arrest... tired, hiding, and with red laser dots on his forehead.

To me it really doesn't matter much what picture they used. I would have preferred what we never learned his name, his life story, motivations, etc. I think a lot of these wackos these days want the "fame" more than they want to do something for a real cause they are behind. As such, robbing them of being recognized might actually lower the rate that these things happen at. But if not... I still don't really care about the story behind that motivates them to do such things. Let me know that they were caught, and when they are executed as far as I'm concerned.

Not that I would pay money for Rolling Stone... hell we rejected them when they were free! :laugh:

[ioan]

There was a story on the Yahoo home page about how many would have preferred to see him as seen during his arrest... tired, hiding, and with red laser dots on his forehead.

Signs of a sick society.

[vhatever]

Signs of a sick society.


Though I'm sure its a few notches removed from the insanity of killing cartoonists when people don't like the pictures they draw.

[markabilly]

And yet, this makes me ask one, simple question: did anyone actually read the article, in it's entirety, and then comment about it? With 'on the street' interviews, what one gleans from the participants is 'no, they didn't', making all this hubbub about the cover of said magazine nothing more than an exercise in faux-intellectualism.

I have, and it is an attempt, a poor sloppy attempt, to try to make him out as not-such-a-bad person, after-all-he-is-human-too kinda of thing. I stole the read by skimming through it at a local magazine/news/bookstore and left it on the shelf. The next day, I went back and all the copies previously on the shelf were gone. When I commented that it must have been a hot item to be going so fast, the guy who runs the store, said no, did not sell, and he got tired at looking at "the stupid photo", so he sent them back to the distributor, who took them back without fussing. He said, 50 copies delivered and four days later, 50 copies returned.

[Starter]

Come on........Last night I discussed this issue with some friends and one of them said that Tsarnaev has a very interesting and romantic face and this impressed him from the first moment.
But of course it doesn't mean he wasn't horrified of what T did or that he's tempted to follow his example.
I mean can't we see the facts through the filter of our intelligence? ( now I'm talking about the rest oof you 'cos definitely I lack this one :p ).
You missed the point. Anything which seems to glamorize or promote fame has an appeal to some very sick individuals who then wish to have their "moment of glory" by performing a copycat act. Granted that those individuals are in the small minority, but it only took one recently radicalized Islamist and a hero worshiping younger brother to change forever or end the lives of a large number of people in Boston. Giving those kinds of people free publicity is not in anyone's best interest.

[Spafranco]

I have, and it is an attempt, a poor sloppy attempt, to try to make him out as not-such-a-bad person, after-all-he-is-human-too kinda of thing. I stole the read by skimming through it at a local magazine/news/bookstore and left it on the shelf. The next day, I went back and all the copies previously on the shelf were gone. When I commented that it must have been a hot item to be going so fast, the guy who runs the store, said no, did not sell, and he got tired at looking at "the stupid photo", so he sent them back to the distributor, who took them back without fussing. He said, 50 copies delivered and four days later, 50 copies returned.

You did not read the article. All you did was "skim" through it and post what you wanted to here as though you are informed as to the contents.

Now, I have read the article and the picture is absolutely pertinent to what the article portrays. Remember, this is Rolling Stone.

The idea was that looking at that photograph makes him look like a normal everyday college kid in America. No different than any other. Sort of like Trayvon Martin, except this guy is Caucasian and got away with throwing a satchel containing a bomb and not one person took any notice.

Now, if they did the same for Zimmerman and posted his picture would you all be as upset? No. Like many here I bet you would be cheering that Zorro of Florida deserves to be on the cover. You know, he killed a black guy who was unarmed and only sixteen. Jeez, we should have him on the cover of Rolling Stone. They have "great articles there".

[Rudy Tamasz]

one of them said that Tsarnaev has a very interesting and romantic face and this impressed him from the first moment.

You've just described how glamorization works.


But of course it doesn't mean he wasn't horrified of what T did or that he's tempted to follow his example.

Well, horror only adds to affection. Ever heard about how victims start feeling sympathy for their kidnappers?

[MrJan]

I don't think it's the cover itself, but the picture they chose.

I believe that the same photo was used in a number of different media outlets before the Rolling Stone cover, why not boycott all of them?

[Starter]

I believe that the same photo was used in a number of different media outlets before the Rolling Stone cover, why not boycott all of them?
Maybe because a cover picture is an attempt to market and sell the magazine and not an integral part of the story? In other words, trying to profit from the event.

[Gregor-y]

Though I'm sure its a few notches removed from the insanity of killing cartoonists when people don't like the pictures they draw.
Sadly, not far enough. Conservatives everywhere creep me out with their desire to wallow in anger and hatred disguised as righteous indignation.

[Spafranco]

I don't think it's the cover itself, but the picture they chose. Also, i think the only known major criminal the Rolling stone had put on their cover before was Charles Manson. They didn't even use a picture for that, but had some kind of drawing.

Your posts are so irritating. You did not read the article so you have no idea as to why they have the 'photo on the cover. You have now mentioned this magazine as "the Rolling stone" two or three times.
If you want to or enjoy making inflammatory comments about a publication or person as in other threads, why not get the names of what or whom you dislike correct instead of having to be informed so many times.

[airshifter]

Signs of a sick society.

For the most part I agree with this. But it could easily be said that a photo of him as a "normal" person is just as sick. Both use extreme bias just in differing directions.

And in your own words....


Is it really that bad if someone offers an alternative view to the mainstream thinking?!
Should we ban all those who provide diversity to our world?

[vhatever]

Your posts are so irritating.

I'm glad my posts irritate you, if it's any consolation.



You did not read the article so you have no idea as to why they have the 'photo on the cover.

Did I ever say I knew why? I don't really give a rat's ass.



You have now mentioned this magazine as "the Rolling stone" two or three times.

I know that, with your limited ability to count, one is awfully close to "two or three", so i won't belabor that point. However, it's common in american vernacular to refer to proper nouns with the article "the", such as the new york times or the rolling stone magazine. Count how many times you hear "rolling stone" versus "the rolling stone" in this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q



If you want to or enjoy making inflammatory comments about a publication or person as in other threads, why not get the names of what or whom you dislike correct instead of having to be informed so many times.


Wow. That time of the month?

[vhatever]

Sadly, not far enough. Conservatives everywhere creep me out with their desire to wallow in anger and hatred disguised as righteous indignation.


I don't think it's conservatives who have been drumming up a racist lynching for about a year now, while frothing at the mouth with every bit of righteous indignation.

[gadjo_dilo]

......But it could easily be said that a photo of him as a "normal" person is just as sick.....

INow I suppose most of people look ''normal'' in photos..... :confused:
What could Tsarnaev's pic present as abnormal? That he has two heads, three eyes, a tail or something like this?

Following your reasoning there also shouldn't be made documentaries about guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
However people are interested in their lives, there are books and movies about them, their early years, their families, their hobbies,etc.

[Gregor-y]

I don't think it's conservatives who have been drumming up a racist lynching for about a year now, while frothing at the mouth with every bit of righteous indignation.
I'm talking about a larger context than Zimmerman and even the US, based on about 25 yeas of being aware of how arguments and statements are presented.

[gadjo_dilo]

You've just described how glamorization works.Come on Rudy......What will happen if every pretty face we see becomes a role model?




Well, horror only adds to affection. Ever heard about how victims start feeling sympathy for their kidnappers?
Nah...Most people are too rudimentary for this....If I think twice, I wouldn't mind if a certain guy kidnapped me. :p

[Malbec]

But it could easily be said that a photo of him as a "normal" person is just as sick.

Why would it be sick?

Would it be more comforting if he was more obviously 'evil' or fell into an easily stereotyped beardy Muslim fanatic living in the desert counting his camels?

The fact is that this character was complicated but seemed pretty normal until the terrorist attacks. He wasn't an attention seeker, a loser who had no other way of being successful except by plastering himself over the newspapers by killing thousands. He was successful by any measure, popular and intelligent with a place at medical school, yet he threw it away by choosing to kill as many civilians as possible. Yet here you are, joined by several other people who notably are all American in saying you do not wish to try to understand how it is that he could do what he did. So how does sticking your fingers into your ears and saying that you don't want to hear or understand help you exactly?

You might not be interested in these details but for organisations like the CIA and FBI who are in the business of identifying future terrorists how this kid went from someone who was Westernised (which is after all the point of the cover photo, he was taking self-portraits having preened himself which is what a lot of well adjusted kids do), at ease in his new host country, popular and successful to someone who wanted to hurt his host nation as much as he possibly could is of great importance, and as someone who doesn't care for knee-jerk responses nor simple one word explanations of why things happen, I'm interested too.

Its definitely not easy or comfortable finding out more about home-grown terrorists, after all their actions are suggestive that your cultural values are so flawed that someone completely immersed in it can hate it so much that they will be willing to give their lives to destroy it. It is even more difficult when you realise that they are not mentally ill but are indeed quite rational and sometimes well respected members of the community (like some of the 7/7 bombers were in the UK). The alternative however is simply to not try to understand which to put it mildly is intellectual laziness and complacent. I simply do not understand your lack of willingness to try and figure out why things happened a certain way.

[Spafranco]

I'm glad my posts irritate you, if it's any consolation.



Did I ever say I knew why? I don't really give a rat's ass.



I know that, with your limited ability to count, one is awfully close to "two or three", so i won't belabor that point. However, it's common in american vernacular to refer to proper nouns with the article "the", such as the new york times or the rolling stone magazine. Count how many times you hear "rolling stone" versus "the rolling stone" in this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q




Wow. That time of the month?

If you don't give "give a rats ass" then why are you posting?

Oh, and just so that you don't mangle and cluster f### anymore with your inaccurate, self aggrandizing attempts at grammatical 'explanation' , if that is what you were trying to do, the name of the Magazine is Rolling Stone. Not THE Rolling Stone.

"Also, i think the only known major criminal the Rolling stone had" Post # 36<<<< Now, you try to explain with gibberish how this is correct and the way that it should be written or used in conversation. If it were Time magazine would you have said, the Time magazine or the Newsweek Magazine? You would. Educated people would not.
So, when you argue about issues stop trying to be the know-it-all when in fact you are very ill informed. Just sayin, irony etc. ;)

[airshifter]

INow I suppose most of people look ''normal'' in photos..... :confused:
What could Tsarnaev's pic present as abnormal? That he has two heads, three eyes, a tail or something like this?

Following your reasoning there also shouldn't be made documentaries about guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
However people are interested in their lives, there are books and movies about them, their early years, their families, their hobbies,etc.

I wasn't suggesting either photo is the right way to portray such a person, but to show one side without the other clearly does not show the character of such a person. Hiding in a boat while police laser sights tag your head isn't normal by any means, but that is also part of his history now, the same as the "nice" photos.

And I agree people like to know about even the most evil in other humans. But I personally think some of these people want this... fame through evil acts. He could have just as easily used smoke bombs, came forward and admitted to it, and told his story.



Why would it be sick?

Would it be more comforting if he was more obviously 'evil' or fell into an easily stereotyped beardy Muslim fanatic living in the desert counting his camels?

The fact is that this character was complicated but seemed pretty normal until the terrorist attacks. He wasn't an attention seeker, a loser who had no other way of being successful except by plastering himself over the newspapers by killing thousands. He was successful by any measure, popular and intelligent with a place at medical school, yet he threw it away by choosing to kill as many civilians as possible. Yet here you are, joined by several other people who notably are all American in saying you do not wish to try to understand how it is that he could do what he did. So how does sticking your fingers into your ears and saying that you don't want to hear or understand help you exactly?

You might not be interested in these details but for organisations like the CIA and FBI who are in the business of identifying future terrorists how this kid went from someone who was Westernised (which is after all the point of the cover photo, he was taking self-portraits having preened himself which is what a lot of well adjusted kids do), at ease in his new host country, popular and successful to someone who wanted to hurt his host nation as much as he possibly could is of great importance, and as someone who doesn't care for knee-jerk responses nor simple one word explanations of why things happen, I'm interested too.

Its definitely not easy or comfortable finding out more about home-grown terrorists, after all their actions are suggestive that your cultural values are so flawed that someone completely immersed in it can hate it so much that they will be willing to give their lives to destroy it. It is even more difficult when you realise that they are not mentally ill but are indeed quite rational and sometimes well respected members of the community (like some of the 7/7 bombers were in the UK). The alternative however is simply to not try to understand which to put it mildly is intellectual laziness and complacent. I simply do not understand your lack of willingness to try and figure out why things happened a certain way.


You've taken what I've said and read a lot into it that wasn't said. See above for the basics, and you must know full well that my point on either photo being judged a "sick" is entirely up to the person viewing the photo. Both his normal and abnormal life are part of his history now, so to portray either one or the other isn't really proper IMO.

As for the story, details, motivations, etc, you'll notice that I said I would not care. I'm not a medical expert that can properly assess his mental state or upbringing, nor am I trained in interrogation that might lead to his motivations and real reasons behind his actions. I didn't suggest or imply that nobody should know, but the trained professionals can figure it all out as far as I'm concerned.

What I oppose is the "fame" he will get surrounding his actions. Regardless of motivations I personally think that blatant, indiscriminate terrorism that takes human life without regard should be met with harsh punishment, to include not giving such people the satisfaction of any acknowledgement of who they are. I personally think that is what many of them seek.

Terrorist attacks are so few that I don't think any expert would consider any culture that a person lives in by their own free will a justification of the actions, nor a rational decision. There is no lack of willingness on my part to understand why people do such things, it has taken place in many forms for centuries. The same as with politics, the greatest deep rooted motivations are most often a quest for power, or a feeling of being powerless. Neither IMO justifies intentionally killing other humans that had no first hand involvement, even if the terrorists deep rooted motivations are legitimate.

[vhatever]

So, when you argue about issues stop trying to be the know-it-all when in fact you are very ill informed. Just sayin, irony etc. ;)

WTF are you talking about? you started the whole Nazi grammarian nonsense. I just made you look stupid for doing so.


Matt Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719)

"ill-informed" morons working there can't even get it straight, apparently.

All you need to do is go search google for "the rolling stone" and you will see it's commonly used. Hey, just pretend it's a thesaurus and you are trying to look smart.

[gadjo_dilo]

I wasn't suggesting either photo is the right way to portray such a person, but to show one side without the other clearly does not show the character of such a person. Hiding in a boat while police laser sights tag your head isn't normal by any means, but that is also part of his history now, the same as the "nice" photos.

And I agree people like to know about even the most evil in other humans. But I personally think some of these people want this... fame through evil acts. He could have just as easily used smoke bombs, came forward and admitted to it, and told his story.





1. The other side of his person was already well known and debated on tones of papers.
2. I think you're wrong. Tsarnaev wasn't looking for fame. Otherwise he wouldn't have run and hide after the incident. If fame was in his cards he would have stayed and shout ''hey guys, it's me who did this carnage''. But after the way he acted it's obvious he hoped he'll never be recognized and caught.

[BDunnell]

Why would it be sick?

Would it be more comforting if he was more obviously 'evil' or fell into an easily stereotyped beardy Muslim fanatic living in the desert counting his camels?

The fact is that this character was complicated but seemed pretty normal until the terrorist attacks. He wasn't an attention seeker, a loser who had no other way of being successful except by plastering himself over the newspapers by killing thousands. He was successful by any measure, popular and intelligent with a place at medical school, yet he threw it away by choosing to kill as many civilians as possible. Yet here you are, joined by several other people who notably are all American in saying you do not wish to try to understand how it is that he could do what he did. So how does sticking your fingers into your ears and saying that you don't want to hear or understand help you exactly?

You might not be interested in these details but for organisations like the CIA and FBI who are in the business of identifying future terrorists how this kid went from someone who was Westernised (which is after all the point of the cover photo, he was taking self-portraits having preened himself which is what a lot of well adjusted kids do), at ease in his new host country, popular and successful to someone who wanted to hurt his host nation as much as he possibly could is of great importance, and as someone who doesn't care for knee-jerk responses nor simple one word explanations of why things happen, I'm interested too.

Its definitely not easy or comfortable finding out more about home-grown terrorists, after all their actions are suggestive that your cultural values are so flawed that someone completely immersed in it can hate it so much that they will be willing to give their lives to destroy it. It is even more difficult when you realise that they are not mentally ill but are indeed quite rational and sometimes well respected members of the community (like some of the 7/7 bombers were in the UK). The alternative however is simply to not try to understand which to put it mildly is intellectual laziness and complacent. I simply do not understand your lack of willingness to try and figure out why things happened a certain way.

I am reminded of a certain other American on these forums who was more than happy to state that there is no need to see 'shades of grey' when assessing an issue, only 'black and white'. There is no other nation in the world, it seems to me, where public displays of ignorance — worse, of revelling in ignorance and berating those they consider 'intellectual' (which generally, in these terms, just means 'able to write in proper English') — are met with so little of the derision they deserve.

[BDunnell]

I just made you look stupid for doing so.

You do not have the capabilities to make anyone else look stupid. That you believe you do is an example of sheer delusion.

[BDunnell]

I wasn't suggesting either photo is the right way to portray such a person, but to show one side without the other clearly does not show the character of such a person. Hiding in a boat while police laser sights tag your head isn't normal by any means, but that is also part of his history now, the same as the "nice" photos.

Not every depiction of such an individual has also to stress how bad/evil/appalling/sick they are. This can be taken as read from the actions that caused discussion of them in the first place.



What I oppose is the "fame" he will get surrounding his actions. Regardless of motivations I personally think that blatant, indiscriminate terrorism that takes human life without regard should be met with harsh punishment, to include not giving such people the satisfaction of any acknowledgement of who they are. I personally think that is what many of them seek.

To take this a stage further, you clearly do not believe in freedom of the press.

[BDunnell]

Incidentally, it says quite a lot that the thread starter is unable even to spell the name of the magazine involved correctly. This doesn't bode well for whatever arguments they then seek to make — especially not for criticism of journalists, a job they themselves could never hope to perform.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Vintage stuff from BDunnell. I can't help admiring it.

[Garry Walker]

Incidentally, it says quite a lot that the thread starter is unable even to spell the name of the magazine involved correctly. This doesn't bode well for whatever arguments they then seek to make — especially not for criticism of journalists, a job they themselves could never hope to perform.
How very surprising to see dunnell throw personal insults again and again.


Signs of a sick society.
How?


Now, if they did the same for Zimmerman and posted his picture would you all be as upset? No. Like many here I bet you would be cheering that Zorro of Florida deserves to be on the cover. You know, he killed a black guy who was unarmed and only sixteen. Jeez, we should have him on the cover of Rolling Stone. They have "great articles there".
How very noble of you to make such a comparison. Let's look at the facts - one man kills someone who is trying to bash his head against concrete and who is drugged up, the other kills innocent people, including an 8 year old child and injures hundreds of other innocent people. Equal? Or have you just exposed yourself as the biggest enemy of intelligence?

[BDunnell]

How very noble of you to make such a comparison. Let's look at the facts - one man kills someone who is trying to bash his head against concrete and who is drugged up, the other kills innocent people, including an 8 year old child and injures hundreds of other innocent people. Equal? Or have you just exposed yourself as the biggest enemy of intelligence?

Would you have one rather than the other on the cover of a magazine? Or neither?

[Garry Walker]

Would you have one rather than the other on the cover of a magazine? Or neither?

I would prefer to not have terrorists or criminals of any kind on magazine covers, but to be honest, I don't think it matters much who is on the cover of a magazine. I personally am not offended or bothered even slightly at anyone being on the cover, be it Pol Pot, Attila or the blood-covered Boston bomber. As for Zimmermann, why not, if he were to want it? He has been through hell due to biased media coverage and race baiting.

[BDunnell]

I would prefer to not have terrorists or criminals of any kind on magazine covers, but to be honest, I don't think it matters much who is on the cover of a magazine. I personally am not offended or bothered even slightly at anyone being on the cover, be it Pol Pot, Attila or the blood-covered Boston bomber.

I agree completely.

[BDunnell]

Come on Rudy......What will happen if every pretty face we see becomes a role model?

The idea that giving such individuals publicity is, in itself, problematic strikes me as odd. In these instances, the problem, surely, lies not in the publicity itself but those who are stupid enough to be influenced. The fact that the vast majority of people are not influenced, nor affected, in the slightest always gets ignored. Why criticise, let alone censor or legislate, on the basis of the tiny minority who are driven to behave in a certain way on the basis of reading or viewing something?

[gadjo_dilo]

I would prefer to not have terrorists or criminals of any kind on magazine covers, but to be honest, I don't think it matters much who is on the cover of a magazine. I personally am not offended or bothered even slightly at anyone being on the cover, be it Pol Pot, Attila or the blood-covered Boston bomber.

And I shall add that anyway terrorists' pics are on the front page of all newspapers when incidents like the one in Boston happen. So why making so much fuss when the pic is on a magazine?

[airshifter]

1. The other side of his person was already well known and debated on tones of papers.
2. I think you're wrong. Tsarnaev wasn't looking for fame. Otherwise he wouldn't have run and hide after the incident. If fame was in his cards he would have stayed and shout ''hey guys, it's me who did this carnage''. But after the way he acted it's obvious he hoped he'll never be recognized and caught.

If he wasn't looking for the recognition, why was a person with such intelligence planning such an act without any real though to the consequences and/or a proper and realistic escape plan? Maybe if you are correct we should be showing photos with titles such as "Another Stupid One From School".



To take this a stage further, you clearly do not believe in freedom of the press.

You've just given a shining example of why I personally don't think the public needs to know anything about such people. Your statement above does not reflect truth, but rather you taking something I never stated and adding your spin to it. The modern day media, who are hardly journalists by any definition, don't often deal with many facts at all. They will all create stories with theories, spin, slants, views, and opinions that in most cases can't be backed up with confirmed facts. This is not responsible reporting, and often the public opinion is based on items other than facts, which further skews the lines.

If we had responsible journalists with ethics standards that reported facts, that would be another story. But we don't... and most of the world either knows that or turns a blind eye to the opinion they don't like, regardless of the source, or a lack of any facts behind it.

And do us both a favor... don't pretend to know what I think if you "take it a stage further". I'm more than capable of speaking for myself and don't need anyone adding their "spin" to what I say. ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

If he wasn't looking for the recognition, why was a person with such intelligence planning such an act without any real though to the consequences and/or a proper and realistic escape plan? Maybe if you are correct we should be showing photos with titles such as "Another Stupid One From School".
I think that even psychologists can't say this. The only one who knew the answer is dead now. Matter of fact, on different scales we all do sometimes things that seem illogical. I did such a thing last week.



You've just given a shining example of why I personally don't think the public needs to know anything about such people.

Then BDunnell is right. Under the communist regime when press was controlled by authorities such things were never revealed to the public. There were cases of celebrities who were murdered on violent circumstances and people knew this because of rumours but the press never said more than x or y has died in tragic circumstances. If victims were ordinary people the press would say nothing. Even the case of a serial sex killer who was caught was presented on about 5 little rows with a picture of the size of our avatars.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The idea that giving such individuals publicity is, in itself, problematic strikes me as odd. In these instances, the problem, surely, lies not in the publicity itself but those who are stupid enough to be influenced. The fact that the vast majority of people are not influenced, nor affected, in the slightest always gets ignored.

Your statement would have been true in a world of responsible media and intelligent audiences. The world I live in is a bit different. For instance, I don't watch TV but people around me do. The difference in perceptions and the way of thinking is drastic. My dad reads tabloids, watches lots of TV stuff and has some Internet news for dessert. As a result, being a generally intelligent person, well versed in literature and arts, he can't eat a sausage without speculating about how dangerous it is to his health and what kind of chemicals it contains. Sometimes he indulges in conspiracy theories. That is largely based on what he learns from the media.


Why criticise, let alone censor or legislate, on the basis of the tiny minority who are driven to behave in a certain way on the basis of reading or viewing something?

I'm the last man to insist on censoring or legislating something, but I don't mind criticizing or, rather sensitizing people about the fact that what they do may harm others. In the journo/reader pair the journo is the more knowledgeable and intelligent guy by definition. That's why he writes and the reader reads. He's the leader and the reader is the follower. The journalist, especially the one covering sensitive subjects has to be ultra-responsible, realizing that his writing can mislead people. This was not the case with this publication.

[donymo]

What's the big deal?

[airshifter]

Then BDunnell is right. Under the communist regime when press was controlled by authorities such things were never revealed to the public. There were cases of celebrities who were murdered on violent circumstances and people knew this because of rumours but the press never said more than x or y has died in tragic circumstances. If victims were ordinary people the press would say nothing. Even the case of a serial sex killer who was caught was presented on about 5 little rows with a picture of the size of our avatars.

You aren't seeing my major point. I have no problem at all with the truth being told to the public with very few exceptions. The problem I have is the lack of the press/media not being held accountable at a higher level for spreading fact. These days they often don't deal with facts much at all.

It is probably somewhat human nature to speculate, ponder, look for theories, etc but this will be done at the public level regardless. If the press/media does so before the public even sees the information, the real truth becomes more and more skewed.

[airshifter]

Your statement would have been true in a world of responsible media and intelligent audiences. The world I live in is a bit different. For instance, I don't watch TV but people around me do. The difference in perceptions and the way of thinking is drastic. My dad reads tabloids, watches lots of TV stuff and has some Internet news for dessert. As a result, being a generally intelligent person, well versed in literature and arts, he can't eat a sausage without speculating about how dangerous it is to his health and what kind of chemicals it contains. Sometimes he indulges in conspiracy theories. That is largely based on what he learns from the media.



I'm the last man to insist on censoring or legislating something, but I don't mind criticizing or, rather sensitizing people about the fact that what they do may harm others. In the journo/reader pair the journo is the more knowledgeable and intelligent guy by definition. That's why he writes and the reader reads. He's the leader and the reader is the follower. The journalist, especially the one covering sensitive subjects has to be ultra-responsible, realizing that his writing can mislead people. This was not the case with this publication.

Great post Rudy, and it reflects on what I think is the larger problem.

In this case I have not read the story, and have no intention to. This is due to the past history I have seen with the publication of not dealing much with facts, and often ignoring major facts.

Modern day press/media/journalists have moved so far away from facts and so near to sensationalism that using many (if not most) modern sources will lead you far from the truth. And due to this, many actually take as truth the misinformation given to them, and spread it further promoting such agenda. I have no issue with a source speculating if they identify it as such, but most speculate and present it as fact, ignoring solid evidence the does not support their speculation. I don't know how many times I've researched subjects with readily available information that would punch giant holes in most of what the media is reporting.

If there were a media source that used quality and credible references, cited credible sources, and kept all of the spin out of their reporting then I would gladly pay for it. I've yet to find one in any recent years.

[gadjo_dilo]

If there were a media source that used quality and credible references, cited credible sources, and kept all of the spin out of their reporting then I would gladly pay for it. I've yet to find one in any recent years.

Can you believe that in my country a TV channel debated a case of a lawyer who disappeared and the suspect was her policeman husband for 239 nights in a row? And a lot of idiots watched the debate every night until 2a.m.......One night tghey discussed about 6 hours and even started a poll with the Q ''do you believe that between Bran and Rucar, policeman Cioaca (the husband) stopped to pee?"" :laugh:
http://ceicunoi.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/de-ce-sa-nu-votezi-dan-diaconescu-otv-pp-dd-alegeri-parlamentare-2012-cioaca-si-a-facut-nevoile-rucar-bran-ceicunoi-wordpress-com.jpg

[Starter]

Modern day press/media/journalists have moved so far away from facts and so near to sensationalism that using many (if not most) modern sources will lead you far from the truth. And due to this, many actually take as truth the misinformation given to them, and spread it further promoting such agenda. I have no issue with a source speculating if they identify it as such, but most speculate and present it as fact, ignoring solid evidence the does not support their speculation. I don't know how many times I've researched subjects with readily available information that would punch giant holes in most of what the media is reporting.
I agree with what you've said here. To be completely fair though, it must be said that both sides of the political divide engage in this kind of "reporting". It's only because most of the major media lean toward the left that it seems only one side does it.

[BDunnell]

You've just given a shining example of why I personally don't think the public needs to know anything about such people. Your statement above does not reflect truth, but rather you taking something I never stated and adding your spin to it.

In making that comment, you have just proved my point exactly. How on earth can you say you believe in a free press and, at the same time, say 'the public doesn't need to know anything about such people'? Who are you to decide what the public should or should not know about? The same goes for any of us. If the information is accurate, there should be no problem publishing it. You can't just brush these individuals under the carpet and hope they go away. And what other stuff do you 'not think we should know about'? It's a dangerous path down which to go.

This is not a matter of spin or interpretation: it's a direct extension of your view.

[BDunnell]

Your statement would have been true in a world of responsible media and intelligent audiences. The world I live in is a bit different. For instance, I don't watch TV but people around me do. The difference in perceptions and the way of thinking is drastic. My dad reads tabloids, watches lots of TV stuff and has some Internet news for dessert. As a result, being a generally intelligent person, well versed in literature and arts, he can't eat a sausage without speculating about how dangerous it is to his health and what kind of chemicals it contains. Sometimes he indulges in conspiracy theories. That is largely based on what he learns from the media.

With respect to your father and his ilk, why should behaviour, in this case of the media, have to be altered so as to cater for the fears of such people based on whatever media they happen to consume? I dislike the idea that we must now censor and legislate on those grounds.

We see the same pattern in other aspects of US media — for instance, Janet Jackson showing the merest bit of cleavage at the Superbowl provoked a reaction so outrageous as to appear nonsensical. The incident was nothing, yet the response to it was dictated by the most conservative, prudish sections of society. It seemed very backward.



I'm the last man to insist on censoring or legislating something, but I don't mind criticizing or, rather sensitizing people about the fact that what they do may harm others. In the journo/reader pair the journo is the more knowledgeable and intelligent guy by definition. That's why he writes and the reader reads. He's the leader and the reader is the follower. The journalist, especially the one covering sensitive subjects has to be ultra-responsible, realizing that his writing can mislead people. This was not the case with this publication.

Really? In what sense has this case 'misled' anyone?

[BDunnell]

You aren't seeing my major point. I have no problem at all with the truth being told to the public with very few exceptions. The problem I have is the lack of the press/media not being held accountable at a higher level for spreading fact. These days they often don't deal with facts much at all.

But that's a different point. Are the 'facts' of this issue of Rolling Stone in dispute?

I also struggle to understand what you mean when you say you 'have a problem with the press/media not being held accountable at a higher level for spreading fact'. Why should anyone be held accountable for 'spreading fact'?

[BDunnell]

If there were a media source that used quality and credible references, cited credible sources, and kept all of the spin out of their reporting then I would gladly pay for it. I've yet to find one in any recent years.

They would still be accused of bias by some, just as are all news outlets.

[airshifter]

In making that comment, you have just proved my point exactly. How on earth can you say you believe in a free press and, at the same time, say 'the public doesn't need to know anything about such people'? Who are you to decide what the public should or should not know about? The same goes for any of us. If the information is accurate, there should be no problem publishing it. You can't just brush these individuals under the carpet and hope they go away. And what other stuff do you 'not think we should know about'? It's a dangerous path down which to go.

This is not a matter of spin or interpretation: it's a direct extension of your view.

See the highlighted above. You have done exactly what the press and media are allowed to do freely... not deal with facts. In two posts you have "taken it a stage further" and made an "extension" of my view. Neither are my view, thus the information has been spun and twisted as you desired.

The press should be free to report facts, but not free to report spin, theories, conjecture, etc without identification of the information as such. These points are all clarified through the posts, and thus your view of extension or stages being added are simply spin. Unless you wish you debate that you are more entitled to clarify my view than I am, I really don't see any debate to be had here.

Fact > spin, fiction, speculation, etc That's my real concern with the media.



As for exceptions I did mention, there are IMO times when in the interests of security and such things that the general public should not be informed of the truth, at least until actions have been taken by the respective agencies to minimize the risks of the issues discovered. There are always times when full disclosure of the truth may endanger people without need, and times that full disclosure is the appropriate thing. This is even true on a smaller level such as personal relations with others.

[BDunnell]

See the highlighted above. You have done exactly what the press and media are allowed to do freely... not deal with facts. In two posts you have "taken it a stage further" and made an "extension" of my view. Neither are my view, thus the information has been spun and twisted as you desired.

The press should be free to report facts, but not free to report spin, theories, conjecture, etc without identification of the information as such. These points are all clarified through the posts, and thus your view of extension or stages being added are simply spin. Unless you wish you debate that you are more entitled to clarify my view than I am, I really don't see any debate to be had here.

There you go again, now seeking to call off any further debate on the grounds, it would appear, that not everyone agrees with you. If this is your definition of 'freedom of expression', it's not very wide-ranging — it seems to wish to restrict the press from publishing material about certain individuals just because you find them offensive (as far as I can gather), and to put an end to discussion of the surrounding issues. If you consider me again to 'not be dealing with facts', I'd be grateful if you could explain what is wrong with my comments on your position.

I don't think you really understand the issue at stake, either. The instance we are discussing has nothing to do with 'facts'. I am not aware of the facts of the content of Rolling Stone being in dispute; rather, people are debating the wisdom of putting the suspected bomber on the cover. A very different matter. If the articles inside contain inaccuracies, then fair enough, but this is not the topic in hand.

[airshifter]

But that's a different point. Are the 'facts' of this issue of Rolling Stone in dispute?

I also struggle to understand what you mean when you say you 'have a problem with the press/media not being held accountable at a higher level for spreading fact'. Why should anyone be held accountable for 'spreading fact'?

I've made clear already that I haven't read the article, and have no intention to based on my view of the "journalism" within Rolling Stone. To quote:




In this case I have not read the story, and have no intention to. This is due to the past history I have seen with the publication of not dealing much with facts, and often ignoring major facts.



As for the second point you quoted, my wording was poor. I don't think the press should be obligated to report fact, and they should surely omit what they don't choose to report. My intention was that they should be held to standards of reporting what is factual when they report it, to the best of their ability. Though even facts can be presented in a biased way by omitting other facts, at least that standard would promote the media dealing with truths rather than untruths in most circumstances.




They would still be accused of bias by some, just as are all news outlets.

This I can agree would happen without doubt. But if such a source existed and time after time you could find that the sources and means listed were accurate, would you not give it more weight than an article without sources? I know I would.




There you go again, now seeking to call off any further debate on the grounds, it would appear, that not everyone agrees with you. If this is your definition of 'freedom of expression', it's not very wide-ranging — it seems to wish to restrict the press from publishing material about certain individuals just because you find them offensive (as far as I can gather), and to put an end to discussion of the surrounding issues. If you consider me again to 'not be dealing with facts', I'd be grateful if you could explain what is wrong with my comments on your position.

Please quote where I suggested that debate should be called off due to differing opinions.

What I have stated was that in that particular instance there was no debate to be had. I am 100% certain that I am much more aware of my views than you are. That is fact.

In your own words you state making extensions of my thoughts, or taking it to another stage, etc. You may do so if you wish, but in this case doing so led you to untruths. So if you wish to continue stating untruths, by all means do so. If you wish to deal with facts, allow me to clarify my views as my factual thoughts, rather than you attempting to think for me. As above I would have no issue admitting to poor wording or unclear statements, but I do have issue with others attempting to add facts which were never presented by me as even an opinion of mine.




I don't think you really understand the issue at stake, either. The instance we are discussing has nothing to do with 'facts'. I am not aware of the facts of the content of Rolling Stone being in dispute; rather, people are debating the wisdom of putting the suspected bomber on the cover. A very different matter. If the articles inside contain inaccuracies, then fair enough, but this is not the topic in hand.

I've made clear my view on the photo. Many opposed the article I referenced that stated some wanted to see him with laser dots on his head during arrest. Just as they have a right to oppose that view, others have a right to oppose the photo that does exist. What's I've stated was simply that I would prefer these whack jobs get no coverage... and if so coverage dealing with facts. You and others can agree or disagree with that, it's simply my opinion.

[BDunnell]

I've made clear already that I haven't read the article, and have no intention to based on my view of the "journalism" within Rolling Stone.

Surely this disqualifies you completely from commenting on anything to do with the factual accuracy of the story contained within? This, in part, is what you're doing.


My intention was that they should be held to standards of reporting what is factual when they report it, to the best of their ability.

Firstly, what has this got to do with the issue of whether or not the alleged terrorist is pictured on the front page?

Secondly, how do you know that the story inside did not live up to these standards, given that you have not read it and will not read it?



What's I've stated was simply that I would prefer these whack jobs get no coverage... and if so coverage dealing with facts. You and others can agree or disagree with that, it's simply my opinion.

How does that tally with a belief in freedom of the press? You can't just have freedom of the press as and when you wish, you know.

[Malbec]

What's I've stated was simply that I would prefer these whack jobs get no coverage... and if so coverage dealing with facts.

In which case surely you would prefer that terrorist incidents simply are not reported and are covered up Soviet style. Coverage of a terrorist attack or gun attack will by its very nature deal with the perpetrators, after all 'who did it?' is quite a natural question to ask in such circumstances no?

As for whether this guy and his brother sought fame, they neglected rule no 1 page 1 of the Jihadists rulebook which is to record a video of themselves before the attack justifying their attack and spreading it on the internet. Do they really look like people who did it for fame or rather people who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible?

[Malbec]

You've taken what I've said and read a lot into it that wasn't said.

Probably because I used your single post as an entry point to address many issues raised over several posts by several people. I wasn't singling you out but I didn't make that clear either. Apologies.


As for the story, details, motivations, etc, you'll notice that I said I would not care. I'm not a medical expert that can properly assess his mental state or upbringing, nor am I trained in interrogation that might lead to his motivations and real reasons behind his actions. I didn't suggest or imply that nobody should know, but the trained professionals can figure it all out as far as I'm concerned.

As an active participant in a democracy aren't you interested in fulfilling your obligations as a voter?

If he was behind an attack in my country I would be very interested to see if there was some societal or cultural failing that pushed him towards terrorism. I would then be inclined to think about whether a particular party was interested in addressing that issue when thinking of who to vote for, although obviously this would be one factor among very many.

As for not being trained or educated in this field I find that rather facile. I am no engineer, that does not stop me from reading magazines in that field regarding racecars and bikes to see how they work. Surely curiosity comes into play here no?


What I oppose is the "fame" he will get surrounding his actions. Regardless of motivations I personally think that blatant, indiscriminate terrorism that takes human life without regard should be met with harsh punishment, to include not giving such people the satisfaction of any acknowledgement of who they are. I personally think that is what many of them seek.

You've just stated that you have no interest in finding out what makes these people tick, so on what basis do you believe that seeking fame is what motivates these people? In the Boston bombings case I would have thought it was hatred and a desire to inflict as much physical damage on as many Americans as possible that was the motivation.

[BDunnell]

In which case surely you would prefer that terrorist incidents simply are not reported and are covered up Soviet style. Coverage of a terrorist attack or gun attack will by its very nature deal with the perpetrators, after all 'who did it?' is quite a natural question to ask in such circumstances no?

Not for many in the USA, it seems, where dismissing them as 'whack jobs' while professing not to care about the motivation behind their actions would appear to be sufficient 'analysis'.

I find it interesting that someone who refers to the Boston suspects as 'whack jobs' should also say that coverage relating to them must 'deal with facts'. In which 'facts' is the use of the phrase 'whack jobs' based, precisely? It can't be expert medical opinion, given that the same individual should profess not to care what the underlying reasons behind their terrorism actually are.

[BDunnell]

You've just stated that you have no interest in finding out what makes these people tick, so on what basis do you believe that seeking fame is what motivates these people?

Presumably because the individual to whom you were replying had read about this motivation in one of the media outlets they claim to so dislike and distrust owing to their lack of 'facts'.

[Rudy Tamasz]

With respect to your father and his ilk, why should behaviour, in this case of the media, have to be altered so as to cater for the fears of such people based on whatever media they happen to consume? I dislike the idea that we must now censor and legislate on those grounds.

We see the same pattern in other aspects of US media — for instance, Janet Jackson showing the merest bit of cleavage at the Superbowl provoked a reaction so outrageous as to appear nonsensical. The incident was nothing, yet the response to it was dictated by the most conservative, prudish sections of society. It seemed very backward.

Looking slutty is not against the law. However, it is generally a good idea to behave appropriately for the situation. It boils down to one's own intelligence, responsibility and class. If you are for abolishing those things as inventions of right wing bigots, that's a whole different story.


Really? In what sense has this case 'misled' anyone?

That very Rolling Stone has worked long and hard to establish the cult of rock stars, which is a part of the celebrity culture in general. It also has put a lot of effort into making the appearance on its cover one of the most desired decorations for any star. Then, having established a tradition of publishing cover stories on celebrities, whose fame and success many young people aspire to replicate, it publishes a portrait of a good looking young man with curly hair, effectively putting him in the same league with other celebrities. On top of that, they present the guy as "The Bomber". I don't know how much you are into the rock'n'roll culture, but the word "bomber" has generally positive connotations in that culture and appears numerous times in song lyrics, is used as nicknames etc. Now, I believe that with all likelihood at least a certain number of RS readers might have extended the association with a celebrity status to to the poor Mr. Tsarnaev. This is as misleading and irresponsible as it gets in my book.

[airshifter]

Surely this disqualifies you completely from commenting on anything to do with the factual accuracy of the story contained within? This, in part, is what you're doing.



Firstly, what has this got to do with the issue of whether or not the alleged terrorist is pictured on the front page?

Secondly, how do you know that the story inside did not live up to these standards, given that you have not read it and will not read it?



How does that tally with a belief in freedom of the press? You can't just have freedom of the press as and when you wish, you know.


I haven't disputed anything in the article, but I've simply stated my opinion on the likely intention. We got Rolling Stone for free for about 2-3 years until we told them to stop sending the things. My experience with the publication is that they rarely deal with facts much, and often but as big a spin/twist they can on anything that might connect to politics. If I read the article today and it agreed exactly with what I think it would give me no satisfaction, but drive me to seek other sources in search of the truth.

As for the coverage, the issue can be covered, analysis by appropriate experts done and any lessons learned passed on without any recognition of the people involved. We don't need a name, a specific nationality, or a photo IMO.

[airshifter]

Probably because I used your single post as an entry point to address many issues raised over several posts by several people. I wasn't singling you out but I didn't make that clear either. Apologies.

No problem. I thought you were reading into some of the things I said. Mutual fault, apology accepted and extended.




As an active participant in a democracy aren't you interested in fulfilling your obligations as a voter?

If he was behind an attack in my country I would be very interested to see if there was some societal or cultural failing that pushed him towards terrorism. I would then be inclined to think about whether a particular party was interested in addressing that issue when thinking of who to vote for, although obviously this would be one factor among very many.

As for not being trained or educated in this field I find that rather facile. I am no engineer, that does not stop me from reading magazines in that field regarding racecars and bikes to see how they work. Surely curiosity comes into play here no?

You've just stated that you have no interest in finding out what makes these people tick, so on what basis do you believe that seeking fame is what motivates these people? In the Boston bombings case I would have thought it was hatred and a desire to inflict as much physical damage on as many Americans as possible that was the motivation.


My point is that the public doesn't need to know names, faces, background specifics, etc for this to take place. Let the experts deal with the facts and draw their conclusions as to motivations, cultural influence, etc IMO. While certainly the public should be informed if there were specifics within those motivations that they (the public) have influence over, does it really serve any purpose if we know who the terrorists girlfriend was, or what his grades were?

Personally I'm really not curious to many of the motivations or background story surrounding a low level isolated event, especially when the obvious escape was so poorly executed. Nor am I really concerned with the larger organizations, other than what we can do to stop it.

I don't accept terrorism in any form as a valid means of attempting to gain influence, and would prefer our government not tolerate it in any form. As for cultural influence and such, I hope the country I live in never caves to a very small minority of people wishing to change the will of the majority. It would be different if we still had countries all over the globe invading and occupying other countries. But we don't, and virtually every country exerts political, trade, and military influence as they see appropriate.

Caving in to a very, very small minority that uses terrorist tactics would IMO only escalate the use of such tactics. It promotes the taking of innocent life as a means of obtaining political influence over the majority. If the thoughts of people taking such actions were in the majority, they would already have more power and control through the voting process.


As for seeking fame I see it this way.... if Tsarnaev was not seeking fame then his entire plan was poorly executed. For someone with a decent education, it was a severe underestimation of the police and responding federal agencies abilities. This would lead me to believe his thought process was very flawed, which to me gives less credibility to anything he might have to say regarding motivations, etc. In short, if he didn't expect to be captured or killed, he is more or less a complete idiot. And I don't want a complete idiot or whack job having political influence over our government or people. We get enough of that through the election process. :)

[BDunnell]

I believe that with all likelihood at least a certain number of RS readers might have extended the association with a celebrity status to to the poor Mr. Tsarnaev. This is as misleading and irresponsible as it gets in my book.

Irresponsible, perhaps, but so what? The likelihood of anyone reading it and wanting as a result to commit similar crimes is miniscule. Not every eventuality can be legislated for, nor acted against. And misleading? In what way, exactly? I fail to see from your description.

[BDunnell]

As for the coverage, the issue can be covered, analysis by appropriate experts done and any lessons learned passed on without any recognition of the people involved. We don't need a name, a specific nationality, or a photo IMO.

I'm afraid I find this point of view pretty ridiculous. To what end? Would you seek also to prevent publication of images of, say, Hitler?

Allowing some notorious people what amounts to anonymity is to go down a dangerous path. Where would it end? Think about how such things could be misused.

[BDunnell]

Personally I'm really not curious to many of the motivations or background story surrounding a low level isolated event, especially when the obvious escape was so poorly executed. Nor am I really concerned with the larger organizations, other than what we can do to stop it.

I simply cannot understand why one would not want to seek to understand a little more, not out of prurience, but out of a desire to consider a little more deeply the issues in hand. To my mind, phrases like 'whack-job' and 'idiot' are indicative of a lack of curiosity and a wish not to understand. How do you — how does anyone — know that these people are 'whack-jobs' or 'idiots'. Answer: you don't. The indications may be there, but they do not paint a full picture. It is very easy to dismiss such people in this manner, possibly because the notion of a suspected terrorist actually being an individual of sane mind and reasoning is very hard to accept.



I don't accept terrorism in any form as a valid means of attempting to gain influence, and would prefer our government not tolerate it in any form. As for cultural influence and such, I hope the country I live in never caves to a very small minority of people wishing to change the will of the majority. It would be different if we still had countries all over the globe invading and occupying other countries. But we don't, and virtually every country exerts political, trade, and military influence as they see appropriate.

Caving in to a very, very small minority that uses terrorist tactics would IMO only escalate the use of such tactics. It promotes the taking of innocent life as a means of obtaining political influence over the majority. If the thoughts of people taking such actions were in the majority, they would already have more power and control through the voting process.

No-one is suggesting 'caving in', are they? Understanding does not mean 'caving in', as much as George W. Bush and his acolytes would have had you believe, with their simplistic views of people as 'good' and 'evil'.



As for seeking fame I see it this way.... if Tsarnaev was not seeking fame then his entire plan was poorly executed. For someone with a decent education, it was a severe underestimation of the police and responding federal agencies abilities. This would lead me to believe his thought process was very flawed, which to me gives less credibility to anything he might have to say regarding motivations, etc. In short, if he didn't expect to be captured or killed, he is more or less a complete idiot. And I don't want a complete idiot or whack job having political influence over our government or people. We get enough of that through the election process. :)

And from where have you gained this impression of Tsarnaev as 'more or less a complete idiot'? From, I presume, the same media reports that you claim deeply to mistrust. It would appear that, so long as they allow you and others to form a view of him you find comfortable, namely as a man of less than sound mind, such reports are fine. Beyond that, you don't seem to wish to be challenged. As I've said, I don't understand it.

[airshifter]

I simply cannot understand why one would not want to seek to understand a little more, not out of prurience, but out of a desire to consider a little more deeply the issues in hand. To my mind, phrases like 'whack-job' and 'idiot' are indicative of a lack of curiosity and a wish not to understand. How do you — how does anyone — know that these people are 'whack-jobs' or 'idiots'. Answer: you don't. The indications may be there, but they do not paint a full picture. It is very easy to dismiss such people in this manner, possibly because the notion of a suspected terrorist actually being an individual of sane mind and reasoning is very hard to accept.


Rather than once again address all the points made let me clarify. Your understanding or lack of understanding of my view does not concern me in the slightest, and I haven't suggested anyone should share my views. Yet the fact that you find some of my views ridiculous or black and white shows that you have made no attempt to step outside your box and accept them. I accept that your view is different than mine, yet don't insult your view. You claim to be all behind freedom of press, but it seems you are unwilling to even hear an opinion on an internet forum unless it is an opinion you agree with?

I accept that some terrorists may have had a logical train of thought... right up to the point where they decided random terrorism was a logical choice. If you wish to better understand a killer of innocents and accept their views as reasonable, that is your choice. I choose not to bother with humans that have become indiscriminate killers and attempt to pass it on as a reasonable and logical choice. I will gladly accept the labels "whack job", "idiot", "killer", "morons", "haters" and many others as they are given to such people... I think most of them deserve many such labels. Even within the criminal element they are very, very few and far between and as I said.... obviously not of great mental capacity and means if they are captured. A "normal" person is not a terrorist, and a terrorist is not a "normal" person.

Great try with the Bush thing. Despite the boxes you like to place people in and broad brush strokes you paint them with, normal people are much more complex than the stereotypes you wish to attach them to. As such, I have no desire to continue discussion with someone that has made clear they don't practice what they preach. As an interesting side, this is a characteristic common in many terrorists. Maybe I should stereotype you and assume you would have enjoyed watching porn with Osama... :)

[gadjo_dilo]

If you wish to better understand a killer of innocents and accept their views as reasonable, that is your choice.
Hey! I don't think any of us accepted their views as reasonable.....

I choose not to bother with humans that have become indiscriminate killers and attempt to pass it on as a reasonable and logical choice. .. :) That's good but unfortunately these ""humans'' live among us and most of the time we don't have suspicions they could do such things. Haven't read the ''incriminated article'' but I think that was the point as until the Boston incident Tsarnaev looked like a guy who was nicely integrated in the american way of life.

[airshifter]

Hey! I don't think any of us accepted their views as reasonable.....

I certainly don't think that you or most ever did. Most were simply stating that the photo/article was reasonable, as the public will see both sides of the coin. I take no issue with that, even though it's not something I have an interest in. My statement was made towards and individual who seems to want to accept the actions as reasonable...


It is very easy to dismiss such people in this manner, possibly because the notion of a suspected terrorist actually being an individual of sane mind and reasoning is very hard to accept.


And I don't claim that such people have never been intelligent, reasonable, compassionate, etc.... right up to the point they snap and start plotting and taking actions to plan such attacks.




That's good but unfortunately these ""humans'' live among us and most of the time we don't have suspicions they could do such things. Haven't read the ''incriminated article'' but I think that was the point as until the Boston incident Tsarnaev looked like a guy who was nicely integrated in the american way of life.

True enough, and I agree. But then again people even within a country often seem "normal" until they snap and do something violent. Maybe over time they will figure out what the real deep rooted triggers are, as I don't think most normal people would ever consider such things, much less act on them.

As for the magazine cover, it apparently was disturbing to quite a few people. In this area most major retailers chose not to sell the issue but instead to return them all. I guess that is a risk running such a controversial cover creates.

[BDunnell]

As for the magazine cover, it apparently was disturbing to quite a few people.

Yes — quite a few people in a country where the fact of a female singer showing a bit of breast during a TV broadcast was considered such an appalling breach of taste as to cause years of recriminations.

[BDunnell]

That's good but unfortunately these ""humans'' live among us and most of the time we don't have suspicions they could do such things. Haven't read the ''incriminated article'' but I think that was the point as until the Boston incident Tsarnaev looked like a guy who was nicely integrated in the american way of life.

Until he, according to some here, suddenly ceased to be an individual worth understanding. I would consider it quite valuable to understand such people after the event, too.

[BDunnell]

Rather than once again address all the points made let me clarify. Your understanding or lack of understanding of my view does not concern me in the slightest, and I haven't suggested anyone should share my views. Yet the fact that you find some of my views ridiculous or black and white shows that you have made no attempt to step outside your box and accept them. I accept that your view is different than mine, yet don't insult your view. You claim to be all behind freedom of press, but it seems you are unwilling to even hear an opinion on an internet forum unless it is an opinion you agree with?

What utter rot. Where have I said I am unwilling to hear your views? I have read all of them and formed the view that I disagree with them. A very different thing.

Unlike you in relation to Tsarnaev, I am at least trying to understand your viewpoint. So far I have failed, because I cannot understand why someone would ever actively choose to be ignorant about something.



If you wish to better understand a killer of innocents and accept their views as reasonable, that is your choice.

You are putting simplistic words into my mouth. Understanding someone's motivation and accepting their views as reasonable do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Do you accept this? In your country, it would appear that Bush's view, 'You're either with us or against us', has become deeply ingrained.



Great try with the Bush thing. Despite the boxes you like to place people in and broad brush strokes you paint them with, normal people are much more complex than the stereotypes you wish to attach them to. As such, I have no desire to continue discussion with someone that has made clear they don't practice what they preach.

Why the problem with the Bush analogy? You, like him, seem to have a very clear notion of 'good and evil', do you not? And, as I said, you veer very close to the 'with us or against us' end of the spectrum when it comes to people voicing views that aren't automatically condemnatory.


I have no desire to continue discussion with someone that has made clear they don't practice what they preach. As an interesting side, this is a characteristic common in many terrorists.

How do you know? After all, you choose not to understand them and their motivation. Given that, on what grounds can you assign 'common characteristics' to them?

[gadjo_dilo]

But then again people even within a country often seem "normal" until they snap and do something violent.


I'm afraid I'm this kind of person and I kid you not.
However now I have hope that at least BDunnell would try to understand my motivation. :p

[Spafranco]

I'm afraid I'm this kind of person and I kid you not.
However now I have hope that at least BDunnell would try to understand my motivation. :p

BDunnell advances a clear concise argument. The fact that people live within our communities leading a secret life but outwardly appear normal is and should be of interest to everyone with the intelligence that causes curiosity for one to investigate why these things happen.

There was a time when it was deemed that every person with a psychopathic personality was a murderer. Nothing farther from the truth. Being inquisitive means learning. There are few and they are becoming less and less frequent of ideas that are absolutely black and white. For instance Global Warming or if you prefer, climate change. There were some not to long ago that could not grasp the fact that Helium is created by Hydrogen. How could a gas such as Hydrogen create an inert gas? Simple answer. It can.
Rolling Stone did the correct thing and it is made abundantly clear in the article. Airshifter should read it and then would understand why it was sanctioned.

[airshifter]

I'm afraid I'm this kind of person and I kid you not.
However now I have hope that at least BDunnell would try to understand my motivation. :p

Everyone can at some point snap and do something not usually in their nature. But if you were to snap and reduce yourself to taking random life, I'll gladly admit I won't try to justify is a a rational decision. But if it makes you feel better, I wouldn't try to justify such actions if a family member did such things either.

So really I'm treating you just like family. :)

[BDunnell]

Everyone can at some point snap and do something not usually in their nature. But if you were to snap and reduce yourself to taking random life, I'll gladly admit I won't try to justify is a a rational decision. But if it makes you feel better, I wouldn't try to justify such actions if a family member did such things either.

But that's a rather different argument from the one you were putting forward before, isn't it? Now you seem to be saying that not all actions can be rationalised — which I believe is correct — rather than contending that there is no point trying to understand.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Not every eventuality can be legislated for, nor acted against.

The first part of your statement is very true. The second one is questionable. You may choose to be that careless, but I'd rather take precautions if I knew that my or somebody else's actions might eventually harm anybody.


And misleading? In what way, exactly? I fail to see from your description.

Celebrities are cool. A terrorist is a celebrity. Being a terrorist is cool. That's the message of the article in question based on direct Aristotelian logic.

[gadjo_dilo]

Celebrities are cool.
Are they? :confused:


I can name a few who aren't.....

[gadjo_dilo]

So really I'm treating you just like family. :)

Ohhhh....That's really sweet..... :p

[Rudy Tamasz]

Are they? :confused:

I can name a few who aren't.....

I'm just trying to logically parse what media feed us.

You may want to watch "Almost Famous", a nice and light-hearted story about rock stars, journalists and the Rolling Stone, to better understand how the cult of celebrities emerges.

[gadjo_dilo]

I'm just trying to logically parse what media feed us.

You may want to watch "Almost Famous", a nice and light-hearted story about rock stars, journalists and the Rolling Stone, to better understand how the cult of celebrities emerges.
To be a celebrity means to have some kind of notoriety. A notorious guy like let's say Kim Jong Un is hardly perceived like cool.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I'm mostly talking about the celebrities of the Rolling Stone bunch, i.e. movie actors, musicians, artists, socialites etc. Oh yeah, and now terrorists...

[Garry Walker]

A notorious guy like let's say Kim Jong Un is hardly perceived like cool.

Most rappers are former drug dealers and criminals, yet they are often perceived as "cool" by today's gullible youth.

[BDunnell]

Most rappers are former drug dealers and criminals, yet they are often perceived as "cool" by today's gullible youth.

I'd contest 'most', unless you have any statistical proof, but I would tend to agree with your sentiment. In a free society, you can't go around trying to prevent people you don't like from being in the public eye. Who is to have the final word on whether someone is 'suitable'? It's a slippery slope.

[BDunnell]

Celebrities are cool. A terrorist is a celebrity. Being a terrorist is cool. That's the message of the article in question based on direct Aristotelian logic.

But based on its actual content?

[Rudy Tamasz]

But based on its actual content?

Content as well. The article is very ambivalent. It is a decent try to outline facts, but the overall "we-don't-know-how-that-happened-he-was-such-a-nice-guy" tone allows this article to be placed in any context. And that's exactly what the cover photo does.

[BDunnell]

Content as well. The article is very ambivalent. It is a decent try to outline facts, but the overall "we-don't-know-how-that-happened-he-was-such-a-nice-guy" tone allows this article to be placed in any context. And that's exactly what the cover photo does.

Only if one lets it do so, surely? I'll ask again: why seek to legislate on the basis of concerns regarding the most easily-led, or most prudish, in society?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Only if one lets it do so, surely? I'll ask again: why seek to legislate on the basis of concerns regarding the most easily-led, or most prudish, in society?

For the sake of clarity (although I believe I've said it before), I'm not calling on anybody to legislate anything based on this case. All I'm saying is RS should have known better than putting the guy on the cover. It is just my personal opinion and nothing more than that.

[BDunnell]

For the sake of clarity (although I believe I've said it before), I'm not calling on anybody to legislate anything based on this case. All I'm saying is RS should have known better than putting the guy on the cover. It is just my personal opinion and nothing more than that.

Fair enough, but seeking to impose censorship through whatever means is equally undesirable. The end result is the same. So is my question: why should such judgements have to be made with the most sensitive or easily-led individuals in mind?

[ioan]

Celebrities are cool. A terrorist is a celebrity. Being a terrorist is cool. That's the message of the article in question based on direct Aristotelian logic.

Societies are not controlled by logic, they are steered by rules and common sense.
That logic of yours does not apply in a healthy society where common sense and basic rules are its foundations.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Societies are not controlled by logic, they are steered by rules and common sense.
That logic of yours does not apply in a healthy society where common sense and basic rules are its foundations.

Talk about common sense in the audience brainwashed by pop culture the Rolling Stone is a part of.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Fair enough, but seeking to impose censorship through whatever means is equally undesirable. The end result is the same. So is my question: why should such judgements have to be made with the most sensitive or easily-led individuals in mind?

You do have a bit of obsession with censorship, don't you? I still don't see how my critical opinion of an article in a magazine constitutes censorship in any form.

Speaking of judgments, they have to be made with everybody who your words and actions can reach in mind. It's like driving. You can go 100 mph and have no problem, but there are moments when you would do that and moments when you wouldn't.

[BDunnell]

You do have a bit of obsession with censorship, don't you? I still don't see how my critical opinion of an article in a magazine constitutes censorship in any form.

Because that is the end result.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Because that is the end result.

I guess I need to convey that to the Rolling Stone. Then I will be on their next cover as Rudy the Censor, the evil enemy of the freedom of press yet somebody who has a bit of human touch left in the dark abysses of his lost soul. "Yes, sometimes he was a nice guy; he would help me with meeting my deadlines, but I noticed he would always get angry whenever somebody talked about the freedom of press and other liberties in his presence."

[gadjo_dilo]

I guess I need to convey that to the Rolling Stone. Then I will be on their next cover .....
Isn't it what you want? :p :devil:

[Spafranco]

I have read most of the posts and forgive me if I am incorrect when I state that according to many of the posters their gripe is that the photo on the cover of Rolling Stone is their sole reason of contention. The photograph?!

I see philosophical with Aristotle mentioned and then I read that the actual article has not been read. So,in essence it shows a rather sad lack of inquisitiveness and a very direct conclusion to be drawn that this lack of curiosity leads people to make rash judgements and their lack of same(curiosity) can then be exploited by others.
Not learning from history and you are bound to repeat it. Never a truer word spoken.

First it was Trayvon Martin and his death being his own fault and Zimmerman the actual killer walking away totally free. Then the verdict came in and more cheering and more character bashing of the dead kid. Then and now we have Rolling Stone being hit by those that have never even read the article.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I see philosophical with Aristotle mentioned and then I read that the actual article has not been read.

That's plainly not true.

[Spafranco]

That's plainly not true.

What is not true?

[Rudy Tamasz]

What is not true?

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

[airshifter]

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

... and I'm not at all surprised by the statements you made concerning the article. Which is really my point. As people not in the professional fields to help figure out the motives, they won't. So they have a choice in picking what they think might have been the motivations, or stating that they are clueless to the motivations. I could find a kid on the street that could give me those opinions for free.

Even the professionals and experts within the field can't fit a specific profile to terrorism. There are common characteristics, but not much in the way of specifics except those things which are a moving target. Even those characteristics lead to such a large population that finding the people that will act in such a way on those beliefs is very unlikely. Extremist or radical beliefs are becoming more and more common IMO, and often a by product of influence upon the person. It's rare that such things come to life on their own, and media has part in spreading of information or misinformation. As such, media influences the path some go down.

I've found that many people really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public. They want what they think to be public, and attempt to ignore, censor, or state any other thought is wrong.

[BDunnell]

Extremist or radical beliefs are becoming more and more common IMO, and often a by product of influence upon the person. It's rare that such things come to life on their own, and media has part in spreading of information or misinformation. As such, media influences the path some go down.

I've found that many people really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public. They want what they think to be public, and attempt to ignore, censor, or state any other thought is wrong.

How do those two viewpoints go together? A media that refuses to take the occasional risk is one that self-censors — now, that's something all media do to some extent, but there are limits. We already see our mainstream media catering increasingly for the most sensitive and prudish in society. I consider this to be a very bad thing indeed.

And given the views expressed earlier about not wishing to understand the motivation of terrorists, it is rather ironic to then read criticism of people who 'really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public'. How does that square with seeking to criticise a portrayal of the Boston suspect for being insufficiently critical? If you really believe in allowing 'all opinions', you should have no problem with what Rolling Stone did whatsoever.

[Spafranco]

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

My apologies. I thought you stated that you had not. My fault for presumption and not reading your prior posts thoroughly.