What did you do with my RWHN?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think what saddens me the most about this is that the concept of fame, of publicity in itself, has become so valued that the mere act of publishing a photograph on the cover of a magazine, something that once would have been considered an act of journalism, and that, in the case of a crime, would once have been considered an act of public shaming, is now being perceived as an accolade and a reward.

How dare Rolling Stone reward this killer with fame?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

From the Murphys:  A post on their social networking blog on Wednesday morning (17Jul13) reads: "Rolling Stone you should be ashamed. How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!"

Couldn't agree more.

Couldn't agree more...with IRA terrorist supporters.

The irony here is staggering.   

seriously RWHN, fuck you.

fucking hypocrite.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant. 

So what you're really saying is that you've made up your mind and nothing is going to change it and anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is bad and you're going to condemn it.

Gotcha.

[Cain]

Hahaha.

Turns out the image on the front of Rolling Stone was originally published in the Washington Post and New York Times.  OUTRAGE.  Obviously, terrorists should be depicted with blacked out faces, to remind everyone how scary and inhuman they are.  Anything less is letting the terrorists win and direspecting the victims of nineleven.

[Doktor Howl]

I think what saddens me the most about this is that the concept of fame has become so valued that the mere act of publishing a photograph on the cover of a magazine, something that once would have been considered an act of journalism, and that, in the case of a crime, would once have been considered an act of public shaming, is now being perceived as an accolade and a reward.

How dare Rolling Stone reward this killer with fame?

We can't have a Bright New Tomorrow when people run around being rock stars...um...with pressure cookers.  And then get made into drug store heroes, because they aren't wearing a turban and aren't old enough and brown enough to be a proper cover-story bad guy.

You know this.

If they had age-progressed him, shooped a beard on him and maybe tinted his skin a bit, THEN it would be journalism.

[Doktor Howl]

Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant. 

So what you're really saying is that you've made up your mind and nothing is going to change it and anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is bad and you're going to condemn it.

Gotcha.

Hello.  To whom are you speaking, again?

[Doktor Howl]

From the Murphys:  A post on their social networking blog on Wednesday morning (17Jul13) reads: "Rolling Stone you should be ashamed. How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!"

Couldn't agree more.

Couldn't agree more...with IRA terrorist supporters.

The irony here is staggering.   

seriously RWHN, fuck you.

fucking hypocrite.

See above post to CPD.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What's next, demanding the the Sex Offenders Registry be taken offline because it rewards those sick fucks by making their names public? It's a type of FAME, after all, and everybody wants FAME. At any price. It is the principal motivator.

[AFK]

Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.

No, this is about your control issues.  Just like always.

Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?

[Cain]

What's next, demanding the the Sex Offenders Registry be taken offline because it rewards those sick fucks by making their names public? It's a type of FAME, after all, and everybody wants FAME. At any price. It is the principal motivator.

I for one am outraged that an original piece of reporting, including multiple interviews with people who knew the Boston Bomber and have not been interviewed before, have a picture of said bomber.  An entirely unaltered picture, previously published by other media.  And I am very outraged that they had the audacity to put it on the front page, and only call him a "monster".

He's an existential risk.  C'mon people.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This isn't controversial, though, because it looks like the bad guy we expect.

[Doktor Howl]

This isn't controversial, though, because it looks like the bad guy we expect.

Beard.  Check.
Turban.  Check.
Brown.  Check.

Acceptable for public consumption.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

terrorism- all misty and romantic till it happens in your own back yard.

[AFK]

Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant. 

So what you're really saying is that you've made up your mind and nothing is going to change it and anything that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is bad and you're going to condemn it.

Gotcha.

Uhh, yeah sure.

[Doktor Howl]

Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.

No, this is about your control issues.  Just like always.

Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?

I don't think they should have to.  I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A)  I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.