What did you do with my RWHN?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19523421-rolling-stone-boston-bomber-suspect-photo-stirs-online-controversy-cvs-walgreens-drop-the-issue?lite

Magazine sales must have been slumping badly.  I suppose the nut-wits at Rolling Stone think this is "edgy journalism".

Sure, let's make the human sack of shit a rock star.  Fuck dead and maimed and delimbed people.  There are units to move!

[Doktor Howl]

The fact that some stores are not carrying it revives the old saying "banned in Boston", which was sort of a badge of pride once, because it was at one time almost impossible to get something banned in Boston.

So the gigglefucks at CVS and Walgreens are basically advertising for Rolling Stone, which I find hilarious.

[AFK]

The context of the Rolling Stone cover has been pretty clear during its lifetime.  It isn't just some random choice they make as to who goes on the cover, and the nature of how they are portrayed on that cover.  Whenever they put Kurt Cobain on the cover, they didn't just snap some random photo and put it on the cover.  There was a deliberate process that went into how that cover would end up looking.  Someone in a meeting somewhere said, "it should look like x", and there was a thought process behind that decision. 


To me, this comes off as a cynical ploy to move units, on the ashes of very real and continuing tragedy that impacts hundreds of lives.  But, to move units, Rolling Stone decides to pour a big ole vat of salt into those still fresh wounds.

I agree with this. You are right about their decision process. You are right about their sinister motives.
I just don't think they are doing anything wrong.

How are you defining "wrong"?


There is wrong, legally.  Obviously Rolling Stone are well within their rights to put any dumbfuck on their cover that they want.  That isn't even a point of debate.


But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent.  I think the cover is wrong on that level.  And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Precisely!

Seriously, though, the root of the objection here is this:  There are preset images for any occurance, and that allows you to process that occurance without thinking or questioning.  RWHN opposes this, because his entire philosophy is based on control of a population by any means - from psychological methods to tossing folks in prison - so naturally he got mad at this pic.  It strays out of the SAFE, ESTABLISHED image set, and doesn't show the bad guy in the correct manner.

And that might make people think and ask questions.  And that makes them harder to "lead" (control), which is automatically bad in its own right.

Slaves demand thicker chains. Perhaps related to Stockholm Syndrome?

[Doktor Howl]

But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent.  I think the cover is wrong on that level.  And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.

So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice".  Little girls feeding ducks.

And I am certain that Rolling Stone is all in favor of the boycott, too, just for the Striesand Effect on their sales. 

[Doktor Howl]

Precisely!

Seriously, though, the root of the objection here is this:  There are preset images for any occurance, and that allows you to process that occurance without thinking or questioning.  RWHN opposes this, because his entire philosophy is based on control of a population by any means - from psychological methods to tossing folks in prison - so naturally he got mad at this pic.  It strays out of the SAFE, ESTABLISHED image set, and doesn't show the bad guy in the correct manner.

And that might make people think and ask questions.  And that makes them harder to "lead" (control), which is automatically bad in its own right.

Slaves demand thicker chains. Perhaps related to Stockholm Syndrome?

Well, policy wonks demand them.  Keep people safe from dangerous ideas, etc, etc.

[AFK]

But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent.  I think the cover is wrong on that level.  And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.

So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice".  Little girls feeding ducks.

It's about respect, not being "nice".

[MMIX]

I know I'm just a dumb old hippie, but my old-fashioned ass says both Rolling Stone & RWHN are wrong here.
Djohar Tsarnaev has entered a plea of not guilty and the trial has yet to determine his guilt or innocence. Just an observation

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'll admit, the first time I saw the cover, I was all, "WTF".  I was a little pissed that they used a pic that on the surface, made him look safe and cute and sympathetic.  In short, I felt slightly like RWHN, only with less outrage.

Then I read this thread, and came across variations of:

They're trying to make him look like a rock star has been possibly the most aggravating parroted statement of this whole thing.

That's a photo of the kid. It's what he looked like. If it doesn't fit everyone's general idea of what a monster is supposed to look like then maybe that's a good assumption to challenge.

And I thought, "That's a good point.  I didn't want my monster to look like someone in a boy band."

And that's when I caught myself thinking stupidly.  Dok had a post several pages back, that said (paraphrase), "Maybe we should be thinking about how a kid who looked like this became radicalized enough to bomb the fucking marathon."  I think this is the most useful way to direct our thinking.

Absolutely. There is so much more going on here that we need to think about than the fact that they put him on the front cover. We do need to think about copycat crimes; but we need to consider that copycat crimes (and even copycat illnesses and copycat delusions) have been around for as long as we have had societies. We cannot eliminate them without eliminating communication.

A more serious issue to question is our relatively modern glorification of notoriety; whether created by or reflected in "reality" TV, people have become thrilled by what would once have been thought of as public shaming. It wasn't that long ago that having your name and picture in the newspaper because you did something wrong was horribly shameful, embarrassing, a terrible thing for your family. Now, it's widely thought of as a reward. Why is that? How have we gotten to this point?

And most serious of all, and I think the question Rolling Stone really poses with their "Boy Next Door" headline, is the one Roger asked: "How did a kid (who looked like this) become radicalized enough to bomb the marathon?"

[Doktor Howl]

But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent.  I think the cover is wrong on that level.  And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.

So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice".  Little girls feeding ducks.

It's about respect, not being "nice".

So, journalism should be respectful?  Is that what you're trying to say?

[Doktor Howl]

I know I'm just a dumb old hippie, but my old-fashioned ass says both Rolling Stone & RWHN are wrong here.
Djohar Tsarnaev has entered a plea of not guilty and the trial has yet to determine his guilt or innocence. Just an observation

Also an excellent point.

ETA:  A point which Rolling Stone may have cause to consider, should Djohar be found innocent.

[LMNO]

But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent.  I think the cover is wrong on that level.  And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.

So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice".  Little girls feeding ducks.

It's about respect, not being "nice".

So, journalism should be respectful?  Is that what you're trying to say?

I think Spider Jerusalem just shit himself. Again.

[Eater of Clowns]

I know I'm just a dumb old hippie, but my old-fashioned ass says both Rolling Stone & RWHN are wrong here.
Djohar Tsarnaev has entered a plea of not guilty and the trial has yet to determine his guilt or innocence. Just an observation

THIS.

I could give a fuck about decency in comparison to their declaration of the suspect being THE BOMBER before a trial.

[Doktor Howl]

But then there is "wrong" in the sense of just being decent.  I think the cover is wrong on that level.  And why, while I certainly don't support any kind of government censorship of it, I'm all in favor of boycotts to communicate to Rolling Stone that it really fucked up.

So journalism, in an ideal arrangement, would be "nice".  Little girls feeding ducks.

It's about respect, not being "nice".

So, journalism should be respectful?  Is that what you're trying to say?

I think Spider Jerusalem just shit himself. Again.

Also, all copies of All The President's Men should be collected and burned by the Committee for Public Decency.

[Doktor Howl]

But the objective of this thread has been achieved.