I think it's crazy
that people are shocked cuz Rolling Stone had a picture of the Boston bomber on it's cover, and he didn't look like a monster. That was their MAIN POINT. Matt Taibbi, RS writer, and Boston native, explained it well..
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719#ixzz2ZWh3xfak
"It would be beyond unreasonable to expect everyone to be regularly familiar with the articles in Rolling
Stone. On the other hand, pretty much everyone has heard of
Rolling Stone, which is where the problem lay, in this gap between the
popular image of the magazine and the reality of its reporting. I think, on
the whole, the people leveling these criticisms must not read the magazine,
which is understandable. If indeed we
were just a celebrity/gossip mag that covered nothing but rock stars and
pop-culture icons, and we decided to boost sales and dabble in hard news by way
of putting a Jim Morrison-esque depiction of a mass murderer on our cover, that
really would suck and we would deserve all of this criticism."
However, anyone who is a subscriber, and regular reader of RS, as I am, knows that they do hard-hitting news articles, ALL THE TIME, from politics, to banking, expose's and all types of news. This is the same pic that was used by many other magazines and newspapers, without any incidents. Those who are outraged are just showing their ignorance of what RS really is, which is much more than just a popular music mag....
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719#ixzz2ZWh3xfak
Comments