Okay did anyone hear about the cover of rolling stone and how it had the bomber on the front page? im curious of your thoughts but they probably are the same as everyone else's. My opinion? I don't give a shit. I don't fucking care unlike everyone else who seems to be making a big fuss over nothing. Honestly, he's been on TV, newspapers, Magazines and yet this one, people think they are trying to make him out as a rock star which i'm Sure they aren't, people are overreacting in my opinion. But let me know yours. If this belongs in the current news ...please, if you can let me know ...i didn't know where i should put this
I heard about this. Its a massive overreaction IMO. As far as I can tell, not that I've given it a massive amount of attention, it isn't like they're supporting the bombers actions. They're just trying to write an article.
exactly. Im on this other website and they are just flipping out and Honestly, They are acting like its the end of the world because he's on a cover. im so glad, I found someone who shares a similar opinion because apparently my opinion is ridiculous and outrageous
I don't see how your opinion is outrageous at all. Its a commercial magazine after all. If they have an article they want to promote, they are likely, and entitled, to use a cover image to promote it.
I don't know. That's what I said. My dad literally screamed in my face when I told him what i thought. one person said "what about the families?" and I said "They probably have taken it into consideration that regardless, His face will continue to be on magazines, newspapers, TV because that's how the media works. people shouldn't get upset over a cover. he's locked up right now and People are supporting and helping out the families. A cover isn't going to change anything." it's true though, A cover isn't going to change anything.
Its all about context. The families should not be 'offended' or whatever, since the magazine is not defending or supporting the actions of the bomber. But regardless, while the families of all murder victims, not just bombing victims have my vague and slightly insincere sympathy, there are many many others who benefit from learning more about things like this.
Yeah. True. I could have sworn, I was going to be the only one with my opinion. I'm so grateful, Im not. I say that because I have different opinions on a lot of controversial issues and I've gotten plenty of hate for it. like the casey anthony thing...I thought she was innocent and people just attacked me ...for it. Like do i not have a right to an opinion anymore?
Yeah, my opinions aren't exactly mainstream either. You do have a right to your opinion. So do they. And its their opinion that you don't have a right to your opinion
I mean sure, I fight (argue, mainly) for my causes, and I certainly want to see them prevail, but secretly I'd be a little sad if the world were perfect.
yeah. I agree. I generally have giving up arguing unless i feel i need to. Nobody will listen or agree with me anyways so there is no point in my opinion
Yeah, but there is something missing in life if you don't have an opinion. Even if no one listens to it, an opinion is required for a fulfilling life.
In a way, I am divided. I am all for the First Amendment rights of Rolling Stones magazine to publish the photo of the alleged terrorist. That said, if I was the editor I would've done things a different way. I would have used nothing but pictures of the victims and of the event and still write the article about the terrorists but not include a single photograph of them. It would be a statement saying that, while we know that these events occurred, we do not, as a magazine feel that it is right to memorialize or publish photos of this man. At least that's what I would do. If this was a true news outlet, then yes publish photos to keep a record of the event, but this magazine has no purpose other than to entertain and I wouldn't feel right about publishing the photo. But then again my belief in the Constitution trumps this personal belief of mine.
its not going to do much. people are just overreacting in my opinion and honestly, Whether or not rolling stone magazine is for entertainment, Im sure they didn't purposely mean to make him out to be a Rock Star, I feel a lot of people have blown this out of proportion. because this is a photo. not a article, now if the article seems to be "rockstar" material then I'll agree with you but if this is over a photo....then No, Im not going to worry but Thank You for giving your opinion I appreciate it.
I mean...it's a damn article cover! I do think people have overreacted, imo as well. I mean, think of any celebrity (not that he IS a celebrity), well...any PERSON that has done any wrongdoing. Does that mean anytime they are shown on the cover of a magazine, it's "glorifying" them? PLEASE. Let's all overreact over some real issues, like world hunger and improving school systems...
I don't think they should make this kind of stuff national news and talk about it for months and make them famous and seem like celebrities, but I don't understand why people are saying how awful it is that he's on the cover of Rolling Stone when he's been on every other magazine, news website, newspaper, and TV. When everyone else has also done it, why is it only controversial for Rolling Stone?
Phony outrage is the American national pastime. It's just a photo. The story is a profile of the bomber and low and behold, there's a picture of him. I have no issue with it at all.
