Rolling stone new magazine cover, cop goes BEAHCAT and releases capture pics

[Kuya]

The quality of debate has declined steeply in these last few years.

[notorious bum]

Meh, whatever keeps people busy, quarreling about a bunch of superficial shit.

[Mazmaz]

The quality of debate has declined steeply in these last few years.

why do you think I stopped contributing

[Churchill]

can't type with dicks in your mouth?_?

[Headspace]

why do you think I stopped contributing

Implying you've ever contributed.

[Restrat]

So using hair product makes you a rockstar?

[kuronosan]

he was made man of the year for his incredible accomplishments, the full implications of which were not yet realized

Plow, you cannot be this stupid to the point where you miss where I was going with my statements.

Sorry, you just can't. Read my post again, except this time with the additional knowledge that a magazine cover alone does not glorify somebody and that the article is what you should be focusing on.

[Plow]

Plow, you cannot be this stupid to the point where you miss where I was going with my statements.

Sorry, you just can't. Read my post again, except this time with the additional knowledge that a magazine cover alone does not glorify somebody and that the article is what you should be focusing on.

I completely disagree, I most definitely believe being on the cover of Rolling Stone does glorify/glamorize people.

As to the article itself, I've addressed it: there's nothing surprising, no overlying concepts we didn't hear immediately when the names came out (he's super normal, people didn't think he was super religious, etc.), just a bit more detail.

I honestly, completely believe they noticed the picture looked a whole lot like a whole lot of their covers through time, and decided to get a long article done about it to justify putting that cover out there.

Obviously, they had to make the conscious decision that the publicity it would bring would be more valuable than the protestation and boycotting they knew would be coming.

[archibaldcrane]

Guys, someone 40 years ago made a song about the cover of Rolling Stone, and that makes it completely different than the cover of the NYT.

[Plow]

Clearly it's glamorous because of the song, it's not that the song was about how glamorous it was.


If you're fucking retarded.

[archibaldcrane]

Rolling Stone should definitely be chained to that logic for the entirety of their existence.


I just love this extensive argument that we should allow terrorists to dictate how we depict them.

[Plow]

cursory glance from a cover reprinting site, starting from recent and moving back, the most recent ones aren't up yet, so feb 28 is the most recent one listed

lena dunham
rihanna
30 rock
jimmy kimmel
daniel craig
sucking obama's cock on election day
bob dylan
bashing romney right before election
rick ross
breaking bad
justin bieber
deadmau5
metallica
peter dinklage
more obama
radiohead
jennifer lawrence
paul mccartney
the voice
black keys
eddie murphy
jon stewart
RHCP
Katy Perry


Yeap, terrorists fight right in, definitely no glamorization going on there, as I'm sure all those subjects would agree a rolling stone cover is no big deal.

[Plow]

Rolling Stone should definitely be chained to that logic for the entirety of their existence.


I just love this extensive argument that we should allow terrorists to dictate how we depict them.

Oh, you're purely trolling. Got it.

[kuronosan]

Plow:





Versus:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1247701/th...NAEV-570.jpg?6

It is the same damn picture. If you look closely enough, you can even see the grain.

edit: I should add that I'm not saying Rolling Stone doesn't sensationalize to sell magazines. Every print company does that from time to time. I'm saying if you base the intentions of a magazine based solely on the picture they choose for the cover you're an idiot. Base your opinion on the article. If you read the article and it sounds like they were trying to turn him into a tragic hero of America, then by all means criticize. If your criticism is based on what picture is on the front page you're an idiot.

They could have made a different cover with a different picture with the same article and you people wouldn't even notice because you NEVER WOULD HAVE READ IT.

[Cadsuane]

If you're stupid enough to think the quantity and quality of attention one will receive is a non-factor in major terrorist attacks and mass shootings etc., you should probably just never talk, ever, under any circumstances.

So you're doing your civic duity of presenting a united front in shaming media organizations into sternly denouncing murderers and terrorists. This is convenient! Since it looks more like a hand-wringing histrionic scramble for some pathetic patch of dirt you've mistaken for moral high ground. And also since other people who have a similar viewpoint denounced the RS because it was distasteful, not because they were concerned that a human interest story could contribute to future murders, which I shouldn't ever point out as being a ridiculous fucking idea apparently even though it sounds stupider every time I say it.

But anyway yeah you're just offended and want to shame people into abandoning a narrative that doesn't suit you, just like that Boston mayor guy who wants the human interest perspective locked down tighter than a nun's cunt on public servants with a tearful eagle and a softly waving American flag in the background. Plowgic dictates that you defend a stupid position by pretending to really argue for a fake position leaking sawdust at the seams (SECURITY YO).

[Plow]

So you also can't grasp that there's more than one thing wrong with it.

k

[Plow]

It is the same damn picture. If you look closely enough, you can even see the grain.

Yeah, I actually did look pretty closely. They adjusted the saturation to make it match the RS coloring better, which also did just the tiniest bit to clean up his hair and slightly lessen the bag under his left eye.

Nothing to make a big deal about.

edit: I should add that I'm not saying Rolling Stone doesn't sensationalize to sell magazines. Every print company does that from time to time. I'm saying if you base the intentions of a magazine based solely on the picture they choose for the cover you're an idiot. Base your opinion on the article. If you read the article and it sounds like they were trying to turn him into a tragic hero of America, then by all means criticize. If your criticism is based on what picture is on the front page you're an idiot.

Why can't I judge both? The article isn't that bad, it's just nothing new or major, it's not some huge amazing story, it's just a way to justify the cover.

The article is also not what they're asking people to display prominently on store shelves all over the country.

They could have made a different cover with a different picture with the same article and you people wouldn't even notice because you NEVER WOULD HAVE READ IT.

I wouldn't have read it because it's not an interesting or informative article. If the article was good enough to stand on its own without the cover controversy, they would have avoided the cover controversy.

Why? Because if it was really a great article word of mouth would have spread it. Mika would be on Morning Joe talking about this really interesting article we should all read, and Maddow would end the day the same way.

But, it's not. It's just another description of how normal he supposedly was, just like literally every other bit of reporting since the instant we heard his name.


There's literally nothing special or unique about this except that they gave a terrorist a rolling stone cover with a picture he made to portray him as looking like a rock star.

Nothing. At all.

[kuronosan]

Plow. Please stop while you're ahead dude. You're proving my point and you don't even realize it.

[Plow]

Plow. Please stop while you're ahead dude. You're proving my point and you don't even realize it.

If your point is that magazine covers are specifically designed to get people to judge them, and get attention even if it's bad attention, I completely agree with you and have no problem with proving your point.


It's when you start thinking that "don't judge a book by its cover" is an apt declaration for magazines that we have an issue.

[Abandon]

at what point do you both realize this argument is a bit on the retarded side?