Rolling Stone - DPChallenge Forums

07/19/2013 11:34:03 AM · #6

I always smirk a little when people of the liberal ideology (as in "liberty" not as in "left-wing") push a boundary and cause a sharp backlash. They are quick to raise their hands in exasperation and proclaim their innocence when they knew full well they were pushing boundaries. Janet's wardrobe malfunction comes to mind as another example.

Society functions on rules of etiquette, propriety, and decorum. Without them, we are left with chaos. People making decisions like this would do well to keep this in mind.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/19/2013 12:49:30 PM · #7

I don't follow the outrage at Rolling Stone. A publication can and should cover whatever it wants, and RS has long delved into the political. To think that terrorists should conform to a narrowly defined standard we create is silly, dangerous, and completely misunderstanding the nature of terrorism. If anything, events of terror require careful evaluations of the individual and the formation of radicalism. Just as those of us who know only his horribleness through the news are blinded to the "normal" and "good" side of the individual, those who knew him prior to the bombing are blinded to this revealed truth. The article openly deplores him, his actions, and the ideology of terrorism. It simply plots the course of the days leading up to the attack and provides both sides, that which demand his life and the side that knew him before.
Denying the appearance, lifestyle, and ways of a terrorist after their apprehension because it is inconvenient is more commonly known as revisionism. Let's not delve there. Let's consider the reality, who he seemed to be, who he was accepted as, where it led.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/19/2013 12:59:13 PM · #8

I dont think anyone is denouncing the content of the article, its the cover and the fact that it appears that they are glorifying his appearance.

Its how you would photograph a rock or movie star not this this guy who thought nothing of placing bomb next to an 8 yr old boy and blow him up while attempting kill and hurt others.

Personally i think far too much has been written about him, we as a society would be best served letting him fade into obscurity because continuing to allow him to bask in the attention only seeks to encourage others to follow suit.

The wrong people in this world continue to receive too much attention.

07/19/2013 01:23:00 PM · #9

Originally posted by Mike:

That photo has already been published elsewhere. It's not as though it was commissioned. It's a photo selected from those available. RS had Charles Manson on the cover in the past. People are just uncomfortable with the visage not matching what they're comfortable with. We want a mugshot, regardless of if this person behaved as a standard college student the majority of the time. We want the expected outcome to fit the image we have created, and disagree because it doesn't mesh. Our "rockstars" create all sorts of crimes too, but we're okay with their shots, and further, only want to see their mugshots to take them down a notch and judge them where we feel they belong. Yet when we see a two sided portrayal of somebody we dislike inherently, we hope for the lynch squad to be in the photo. Let's add 'ole Sparky to drill it home. This individual had no life before transgressions, no import to be considered. Who cares what causes terrorism, so long as we know it when we see it. Let's silence consideration of the situation and what causes it.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/19/2013 01:51:13 PM · #10

You seem to be headed in a number of directions there SS. Was the photo processed at all? Given the "treatment" in order to make it worthy of the cover? Does the fact that the phrase "cover of Rolling Stone" is synonymous with fame matter? I haven't seen the issue, but is the article the main one of the issue? or one of a few main articles?

Personally I'm neutral about it. I don't have strong emotions, but I'm plenty happy to allow people to be "outraged" and would understand their emotions about it.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/19/2013 02:14:10 PM · #11

unfortunately there are never any real repercussions beyond our initial outrage. Ideally, RS would take a big financial hit from the a boycott that and their image would take a years to recover, but it wont and it will happen again.

07/19/2013 02:14:48 PM · #12

Curious as to if you've read the article there, doc.

Drastic changes, as you can see.
Rolling Stone Cover

Published elsewhere

That cropping sure is rockstar treatment compared to the NYdaily.

The issue isn't whether people are angry or not. It's whether they object to the same individual being portrayed realistically (as he is) or in a fabricated fashion (in the mugshot with a turban that people seem to be yearning for). Domestic terrorists have taken on a huge variety of appearances over the decades, and the outrage of this one not fitting with what people want is somewhat silly.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

07/19/2013 03:36:48 PM · #13

Waitaminute. I'm under the impression the outrage is over the fact we are "glorifying" a terrorist by placing him on the cover of a magazine known for putting cultural celebrities on the cover. You are going to have to back up your idea that the outrage is over "this one not fitting with what people want".

A quote: Boston mayor Thomas Menino sent a letter to Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner, calling the cover "ill conceived, at best,...reaffirms a message that destruction gains fame for killers and their 'causes.'" Menino also wrote that "To respond to you in anger is to feed into your obvious market strategy" and wrote about how Wenner could have written about the survivors or the people who came to help after the bombings. In conclusion, Menino writes "The survivors of the Boston Marathon deserve Rolling Stone cover stories, though I no longer feel that Rolling Stone deserves them."

Message edited by author 2013-07-19 15:42:09.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

07/19/2013 03:44:31 PM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hell, I don't know WHAT all the outrage is over.

What I do know is that we've been fascinated with criminals since time immemorial.

Blackbeard, Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, Capone, Manson, Bundy, Bin Laden, etc, etc, etc.

It's nothing new, nothing at all.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/19/2013 03:57:33 PM · #15

Cover ARt

Interesting to note the change in photographic style over time. Recent covers appear to be more "sophisticated" than ones from the 90's and prior. Older covers are more "arty" if that makes sense.

Covers are ruled by cultural celebs... i didn't see a cover in the last 15 years that is the equivalent of Tsarnaev. Not sure if the gallery is exhaustive.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

07/19/2013 07:58:32 PM · #16

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This would only be true if they were saying the same thing when every news station was plastered with his face for a week solid. Or every written publication had large photos of his face littered about. There was none of the same outrage then as now, it's just that it's now on a magazine that also covers rockstars, so clearly he's being portrayed as a rockstar and glorified.

cynthiann

Nikon D810

07/19/2013 08:31:04 PM · #17

I have nothing against the outrage over this, it's our freedom to express ourselves. But personally, what's the big deal? This photo has been seen before in newspapers and websites, even on FOX Nation. Nobody is glorifying anything. The article is what their message is, and it was a nice read. He certainly wasn't glorified there.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

07/19/2013 08:34:48 PM · #18

... Wanna buy five copies for my mother ...

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

07/19/2013 08:45:16 PM · #19

tune

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

07/19/2013 09:20:30 PM · #20

My irritation is: If it's a picture taken by him -- did they buy it from him?

Message edited by author 2013-07-19 21:20:57.

07/19/2013 09:41:07 PM · #21

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Waitaminute. I'm under the impression the outrage is over the fact we are "glorifying" a terrorist by placing him on the cover of a magazine known for putting cultural celebrities on the cover. You are going to have to back up your idea that the outrage is over "this one not fitting with what people want".

A quote: Boston mayor Thomas Menino sent a letter to Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner, calling the cover "ill conceived, at best,...reaffirms a message that destruction gains fame for killers and their 'causes.'" Menino also wrote that "To respond to you in anger is to feed into your obvious market strategy" and wrote about how Wenner could have written about the survivors or the people who came to help after the bombings. In conclusion, Menino writes "The survivors of the Boston Marathon deserve Rolling Stone cover stories, though I no longer feel that Rolling Stone deserves them."

This would only be true if they were saying the same thing when every news station was plastered with his face for a week solid. Or every written publication had large photos of his face littered about. There was none of the same outrage then as now, it's just that it's now on a magazine that also covers rockstars, so clearly he's being portrayed as a rockstar and glorified.

Well, context is always important. A picture of a naked three year old may be entirely appropriate in a pediatric medical journal while the same picture would be absolutely inappropriate in other venues. I'd say the sentiment is something like that.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/19/2013 10:09:41 PM · #22

Originally posted by vawendy:

My irritation is: If it's a picture taken by him -- did they buy it from him?

LOL. No, I think they found some marijuana on him so that gave them the right to confiscate everything he owns. ;-)

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

07/19/2013 10:52:41 PM · #23

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by vawendy:
My irritation is: If it's a picture taken by him -- did they buy it from him?

LOL. No, I think they found some marijuana on him so that gave them the right to confiscate everything he owns. ;-)

Now, that made me laugh! ;D