I forgot all about magazines.

never forget

to us old heads, "the cover of the rolling stone" is a sacred honor, if only because of that song

hey ray

hey schultz

tell 'em who we are

Kman223 wrote:The supposed "outrage" is just another example of how fragile our society is becoming, everything seems to piss someone off now.

That was my reaction, too. I figured they'd have a field day with it on FOX News, but didn't anticipate so many liberals and young people being so angry

Seems many Americans don't understand the concept that someone who engages in radical behavior can appear GASP! normal. Newsflash here but you don't have to have a beard and a white turban to commit atrocities.

Right, RD. I guess the only appropriate picture for some would have shown Tsarnaev at a terrorist training camp with his head wrapped in a towel, a two-foot long beard and AKs in both hands. I wonder what the reaction would have been if the cover was a photo of him lying in the boat all shot up and bloodied? I am beginning to think that everybody should be required to take at least one Prozac per day and chill the fuck out.

Grotewold wrote:

Kman223 wrote:The supposed "outrage" is just another example of how fragile our society is becoming, everything seems to piss someone off now.

That was my reaction, too. I figured they'd have a field day with it on FOX News, but didn't anticipate so many liberals and young people being so angry

It shows the lack of critical thinking skills across all types of demographics.

Grotewold wrote:

Kman223 wrote:The supposed "outrage" is just another example of how fragile our society is becoming, everything seems to piss someone off now.

That was my reaction, too. I figured they'd have a field day with it on FOX News, but didn't anticipate so many liberals and young people being so angry

As mentioned upthread I don't really have a problem with it, and can see some value. And certainly most of the phony "outrage' can and should be dismissed, along with calls to put first responders or amputees on the cover.

OTOH, my first exposure to to the issue was through the running community, many of whom felt sickened by it. And I get that, too.

I think the running community's ownership is bad too. Not saying that's what you're used to swish, just some other things I've rear/heard

The Dude wrote:I think the running community's ownership is bad too. Not saying that's what you're used to swish, just some other things I've rear/heard

Not quite sure what you're referring to, although if it's that there are plenty of silly runners out there with misplaced priorities I'll absolutely agree. Most people in the "running community" are people I abide, rather than agree with.

What I'm referring to though is more from personal acquaintances. Luckily I don't know anyone that was personally injured in the bombings, but I do know a number that witnessed things they still can't talk about, some that had prolonged periods of fear and panic when they couldn't locate people around the site, and many more for whom the bombings irrevocably altered what had been an important and pleasurable aspect of their lives, some for thirty years or more. It's understandable for some of these to react with outrage or disgust at what they see as a glorification of one of the perpetrators and its exploitation for commercial means, whether that is what is going on or not. For them, the feelings are visceral and real, not artificially generated as one sees among many pundits or others.

The further commercialization and exploitation of these justifiable feelings as a basis for drawing attention to the agenda of parties not personally affected is just as deplorable, if not more so.

Agreed. I do think Kman is on to something about increasingly extreme and shallow responses to things like this nowadays, though, despite or because of media proliferation.

Could be as simple as everybody has a microphone now. Or, microscopic attention spans and news cycles, wherein only the cover (or HuffPost headline) matters?

traderdave wrote:Right, RD. I guess the only appropriate picture for some would have shown Tsarnaev at a terrorist training camp with his head wrapped in a towel, a two-foot long beard and AKs in both hands. I wonder what the reaction would have been if the cover was a photo of him lying in the boat all shot up and bloodied? I am beginning to think that everybody should be required to take at least one Prozac per day and chill the #$!&@ out.

Yeah, because objecting to a magazine (that is a pop culture icon) making the guy look like a rock star is so incredibly outlandish and reactionary.

Damn, forgot my Prozac this morning.

Grotewold wrote:Agreed. I do think Kman is on to something about increasingly extreme and shallow responses to things like this nowadays, though, despite or because of media proliferation.

Could be as simple as everybody has a microphone now. Or, microscopic attention spans and news cycles, wherein only the cover (or HuffPost headline) matters?

Yeah, I think both. Plus the vocabulary in reacting to events seems to be so limited, and everyone seems to be speaking to a larger stage. Pundits themselves seem compelled to adopt extreme positions 9for understandable reasons), and comments from the great unwashed seem similarly compelled to adopt their style. So no one's bothered or annoyed or interested, they're all appalled, shocked, outraged or obsessed.

Yep, you even see it with something as trivial as TV reviews. Saying a show is not among the greatest of all time is almost like saying it sucks

I think the reaction is due to the fact that it is Rolling Stone and not Time or some semi-real magazine. It's sort of like putting it on the cover of GQ.

Rolling Stone has a reputation for good political features. it's probably more legitimate than its reputation for being a music magazine

you already wrote it off anyway

me? so what