• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rolling Stone Portrays Alleged Boston Bomber As Dreamy Teen Heartthrob.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Saw this over the past day. Finally had the interest to realize that I really don't give two shits about this.

I'll look at subscriptions gains or loses from this month and see the reality of the choice on the part of Rolling Stone to glamourize the bomber.
 
Man, if this guy is considered "dreamy", I should consider becoming a pedophile apparently. That is what he looks like to me in this picture. Then again, I'm a dude.
 
This was the same media that gave you Trayvon "the racist bigot thug" Martin as "sweet little 9 year old skipping home from the store". Why does this of all things surprise you?

None of it surprises me anymore.
 
Tweak155 said:
Man, if this guy is considered "dreamy", I should consider becoming a pedophile apparently. That is what he looks like to me in this picture. Then again, I'm a dude.
Click to expand...

I don't think pedophilia would change your appearance, but there is only one way to find out...
 
Ha ha ha, I don't believe it
Da, da, ah, ah don't touch it
Hey, Ray, hey, Sugar, tell them who we are...

EDIT: Someone already posted, sorry.
 
Last edited:
This was the same media that gave you Trayvon "the racist bigot thug" Martin as "sweet little 9 year old skipping home from the store".
Click to expand...

Um..... the trial is over. Is every single thread required by law to mention that case? Has not the carcass of that dead horse been flayed of everything yet?
 
Patranus said:
This was the same media that gave you Trayvon "the racist bigot thug" Martin as "sweet little 9 year old skipping home from the store". Why does this of all things surprise you?

None of it surprises me anymore.
Click to expand...

There's a thread for that discussion right on the front page. A thread where the discussion of the case is, surprisingly, ongoing.
 
This is a case of the media making a mountain out of a molehill. Rolling Stone is getting tons of publicity from this non-event and will continue to sell massive numbers of its publication.
 
win win for rs. People stupid enough to be offended by the cover aren't likely to be RS readers in the first place, and those buying a copy just to burn it? lol
 
As far as the picture, it's not their fault he's pretty. When a magazine puts Bin Laden on the cover no one asks why they made him look ugly.

As far as the content, no one's going to force you to read it. If you want to pretend terrorists are one dimensional villains who hate us for our freedom there are plenty of articles out there for you.
 
Who cares. With all the shit going on in the world we are supposed to be outraged because a magazine put a scumbag on their cover?
 
eskimospy said:
Did anyone actually read the story? It's available free online. It's a very well done, interesting piece that does not glamorize him in any way.

This all seems like people looking at a cover and getting mad without even knowing what they are getting mad about.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure that matters since the cover and the article can be judged separately. It could be the greatest article ever and if the cover is in poor taste, it's still in poor taste.
 
This just sickening. Having a photo of the radical Jihadist on the front cover isn't a big deal but it's this picture which glamorizes him and terrorists. This is typical of liberals and leftists who want to blame others and glorify jihad.
 
Incorruptible said:
This just sickening. Having a photo of the radical Jihadist on the front cover isn't a big deal but it's this picture which glamorizes him and terrorists. This is typical of liberals and leftists who want to blame others and glorify jihad.
Click to expand...

Someone judges a book by its cover. Sad really.
 
Having a terrorist on the cover of a magazine isn't bad in and of itself. Its the idea that its "Rolling Stone" which is usually rock stars and other cultural icons on the cover.

Definitely poor taste. As said above the article can be judged separately.
 
Patranus said:
This was the same media that gave you Trayvon "the racist bigot thug" Martin as "sweet little 9 year old skipping home from the store". Why does this of all things surprise you?

None of it surprises me anymore.
Click to expand...

Boo fucking hoo... go find a real problem to whine about, dumbass. 🙄
 
Incorruptible said:
This just sickening. Having a photo of the radical Jihadist on the front cover isn't a big deal but it's this picture which glamorizes him and terrorists. This is typical of liberals and leftists who want to blame others and glorify jihad.
Click to expand...

outrage.jpg
 
I didn't finish reading the article but we do have this issue at the house. I don't really have a problem with his face being on the cover, I just wish they'd have used a more guilty/unflattering looking photo of him. Something of him in cuffs or a stretcher or something. The sad fact is, this issue will be pimped to young men in the muslim world to woo them into doing sh1t like this guy did. Or get them into the radical fold. Giving free propoganda to the enemy really isn't a good idea, but it doesn't surprise me that RS would do it. This is from the same mag that while the general was there, while we were at war there (and still are), released a hatchet piece (that admittedly the general himself largely contributed to) so they could sell issues.

When you have scum in charge of media, stuff like this is what you get...

Chuck
 
chucky2 said:
I didn't finish reading the article but we do have this issue at the house. I don't really have a problem with his face being on the cover, I just wish they'd have used a more guilty/unflattering looking photo of him. Something of him in cuffs or a stretcher or something. The sad fact is, this issue will be pimped to young men in the muslim world to woo them into doing sh1t like this guy did. Or get them into the radical fold. Giving free propoganda to the enemy really isn't a good idea, but it doesn't surprise me that RS would do it. This is from the same mag that while the general was there, while we were at war there (and still are), released a hatchet piece (that admittedly the general himself largely contributed to) so they could sell issues.

When you have scum in charge of media, stuff like this is what you get...

Chuck
Click to expand...

A picture of him period can be used for propaganda, and no picture of him can be used for propaganda. That's the thing about communicating a message to someone who's already angry and looking for an outlet.

You can see it all the time in political messaging from all sides of the aisle even domestically.
 
Zeze said:
Well, their point is that any psycho shooters in the past, present, future are further enabled by this fame.

I mean, a nice headshot of Tsarnaev is on Rolling Stone's cover. Man, that's one way to get on a rock magazine's cover. This very attention is the fulfillment of these terrorists. RS just took it to another level.
Click to expand...

They used an existing photo, they did not send in their photo crew to take a "glamour shot". Is the outrage only found in those who got no further then the cover shot? LOL all over the place!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top