Discussion
  • Read More
    Max ReadCamille Dodero
    7/17/13 3:12pm

    Walgreens—which owns Duane Reade—has announced that it won't be selling the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone, either.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ratchedMax Read
      7/17/13 3:27pm

      That's okay. Just hand over my RX's, and no one will be hurt.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      nomanousMax Read
      7/17/13 3:28pm

      but how will I be able to buy RS while picking up fleet enemas and epsom salts now? There's only 6 other locations left within a mile that I could go to for all my Rolling Stone and medical supply needs.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Young Mozzarella SticksCamille Dodero
    7/17/13 1:41pm

    The New York Times used the same photo on their front page back in May.

    The Week gave the Tsarnaev Brothers the "OJ Treatment" and that has seemed to garner less controversy than this cover.

    So whats the big deal here?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Li'l BiscuitYoung Mozzarella Sticks
      7/17/13 1:54pm

      There used to be a time when being on the cover of Rolling Stone meant something—a sense of accomplishment, an honor. I realize that they are no longer the rock magazine they used to be, and there is some good journalism at times (see McChrystal story, Taibbi's stuff on Wall Street) but I do think they have chosen this Jahar selfie to play upon the "oh, he looks dreamy!" demo. They know this pic will sell more.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BabylegsLi'l Biscuit
      7/17/13 2:05pm

      Exactly. Obviously Rolling Stone doesn't mean to "glorify" Dzokhar, but considering the majority of its covers have GLORIFIED rock stars - and considering that Dzokhar already has a sick, demented following among girls who think he's just the cutest! - it's a little bit of a misstep. I understand that this feature is an important piece, and RS wants it to sell, but there are other ways of representing it on the cover.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    99Telep☺dpr☹blemsCamille Dodero
    7/17/13 2:07pm

    The problem is simply the photograph. It communicates the semiotics of rock star glamour. Another picture would have raised no eyebrows. I don't think it is responsible to help terrorism look sexy. It does have the visual effect of making him look like a teenage heartthrob and I can understand how people would be upset by this.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      InTheStill99Telep☺dpr☹blems
      7/17/13 2:10pm

      It's totally Jim Morrison, making their pacemaker-aided boomer hearts flutter.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Scrote99Telep☺dpr☹blems
      7/17/13 2:17pm

      Rolling Stone has always used portraits for its covers. The fact that a murderous terrorist happens to be good-looking is genetic happenstance, not evidence of an agenda on the part of the RS editorial board

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Voted4RockyCamille Dodero
    7/17/13 1:43pm

    No magazine should ever offend anyone or put newsmakers on the cover!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      twinsmommyVoted4Rocky
      7/17/13 1:52pm

      But is the issue his presence on the cover or his glamour shot? Manson on RS, Hitler on Time... those weren't photos chosen to make people drool. There are plenty of Tsarnaev photos they could have chosen that weren't so... sexy.

      However, after a minute of thought, all they want is to sell magazines and this photo has the double bonus of people being outraged and talking about RS for once AND the fan girls running out to buy it.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      VirilityUntoTheetwinsmommy
      7/17/13 2:10pm

      There's not a lot of "dreamy" photos of Hitler or Manson... in fact, I'd wager a guess at there being zero dreamy photos of either.

      As for the Time cover with Hitler, it's a very nice and flattering photo of him.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Collapsed ConversationCamille Dodero
    7/17/13 2:23pm

    Why was the original ghostbuster graphic replaced with the red X graphic in the lead picture above?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Camille DoderoCollapsed Conversation
      7/17/13 2:50pm

      Because that was a shitty placeholder intended to fill the image spot until our art director got a chance to make a better-looking graphic. No conspiracy.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Collapsed ConversationCamille Dodero
      7/17/13 2:55pm

      Thanks. I thought it might have been Gawker legal coming down on on editorial- worried that Columbia Pictures would complain that their Ghostbusters trademark was being infringed...

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    bairdmartin31Camille Dodero
    7/17/13 2:12pm

    I'm sure magazines have NEVER put other mass murderers on their covers.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MizJenkinsCamille Dodero
      7/17/13 1:55pm

      I think enough people have already voiced my opinion on the Rolling Stone cover, so I'll just add that every time I see the name "Dzohkar" I hear this:

      GIF
      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        DrillpressMizJenkins
        7/17/13 2:08pm

        Celia Cruz always makes the pain go away...

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        MarcabExpatMizJenkins
        7/17/13 3:18pm

        Gesundheit!

        — sorry, I just wanted to post one lighthearted thing today. It's a tough week.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      Beer, Titties and Left TurnsCamille Dodero
      7/17/13 3:14pm

      I'm sorry, what's the controversy? Insensitivity? Cause that's the only one that makes any sense to me...and even that's a stretch. The media has an obligation to report the news and stories of interest. If Rolling Stone thinks its profile has something to add to the conversation surrounding Tsarnaev, so be it. It's not like their applauding him. The cover clearly gives a negative tone saying that he turned to "radical islam" and calling him a "monster."

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Cherith CutestoryCamille Dodero
        7/17/13 3:04pm

        Every CVS I go to has gotten rid of their magazine section and only carry US Weekly's and stuff by the register. This sounds like a lame "they still sell magazines" thing. But it isn't. It is a genuine statement of fact. I don't think they do a big magazine business anymore. I don't think this will have much impact (but more will inevitably follow suit).

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          ratchedCamille Dodero
          7/17/13 2:08pm

          The beginning of the end. They're now at the nadir of publishing.

          Reply
          <