Rolling Stone Glorifies The Boston Bomber

[PosthumanHeresy]

They didn't make him look good, they used an already existing image. We can argue all damn day about how people might react. The fact is that Jahar idolization existed before this issue & we have no way of knowing what effect, if any, this had on that trend.

They used an already existing image taken by a teenage boy for his online profile. Of course it's meant to make him look good, and anyone who would argue that the image was not originally created in order to make him appear sexually appealing does not understand teenage boys. Additionally, if the current trend is everyone seeing this as glamorizing him, it is glamorizing him due to the fact that, even if it was unintentional, it still is happening. Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.

[MadCatTLX]

Isn't that "Free Jahar" nonsense still going strong?

[Distind]

They used an already existing image taken by a teenage boy for his online profile. Of course it's meant to make him look good, and anyone who would argue that the image was not originally created in order to make him appear sexually appealing does not understand teenage boys. Additionally, if the current trend is everyone seeing this as glamorizing him, it is glamorizing him due to the fact that, even if it was unintentional, it still is happening. Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.

Ok, so I'm still a bit lost here, it's a bad thing because stupid people may continue to do stupid things over it? At least if they don't bother to read the article. Which is obviously utterly critical of this EXACT ISSUE. Since everyone thought, oh he's such a good boy it can't possibly be him. No that must be some other person bombing those people. Showing the glamor for what it is, a thin plating of something attractive over utter shit. As typical.

And I'm not sure Rolling Stone ever had a leg to stand on for not glamorising psychotics, they're a rock magazine. They know all about broken little shits with power fantasies and the will/money to carry through with them.

[ironbite]

I got the perfect response to this non-issue.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0</a>

Ironbite-seriously.

[niam2023]

They had covers including the likes of Charles Manson, so I see nothing wrong with this.

It is their magazine, and their publicity. They can do what they like with their covers.

[PosthumanHeresy]

They used an already existing image taken by a teenage boy for his online profile. Of course it's meant to make him look good, and anyone who would argue that the image was not originally created in order to make him appear sexually appealing does not understand teenage boys. Additionally, if the current trend is everyone seeing this as glamorizing him, it is glamorizing him due to the fact that, even if it was unintentional, it still is happening. Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.

Ok, so I'm still a bit lost here, it's a bad thing because stupid people may continue to do stupid things over it? At least if they don't bother to read the article. Which is obviously utterly critical of this EXACT ISSUE. Since everyone thought, oh he's such a good boy it can't possibly be him. No that must be some other person bombing those people. Showing the glamor for what it is, a thin plating of something attractive over utter shit. As typical.

And I'm not sure Rolling Stone ever had a leg to stand on for not glamorising psychotics, they're a rock magazine. They know all about broken little shits with power fantasies and the will/money to carry through with them.

It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good. Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people. That's already what's happening. Showing he had a broken family and a hard past makes him more sympathetic, and as wrong as it is, him looking good makes him even more sympathetic.

They had covers including the likes of Charles Manson, so I see nothing wrong with this.

It is their magazine, and their publicity. They can do what they like with their covers.

Yes, they can do what they want with their covers, and we can get extremely pissed at them and get stores to start refusing to sell them. It's called a boycott.

[The Illusive Man]

I never thought I would see the day when Fark comments make a FSTDT seem rational in comparison. Oh jeebus where to start with the fail train:

It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good. Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people. That's already what's happening. Showing he had a broken family and a hard past makes him more sympathetic, and as wrong as it is, him looking good makes him even more sympathetic.

How? Why? Are you seriously pulling this out of your ass? I am calling it now you cannot even demonstrate how.

Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.

How are you measuring “the risk of perpetuating the idolry”, is this some sort of butthurt subjective measure?

Some are saying The Rolling Stone Magazine has just crossed that line with their “sexed up” cover shot of Boston bomber, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, pictured in full rock star pout, tousled hair, and dreamy eyes staring coolly into the camera. If you didn’t know better, you’d think he was the latest singer/songwriter sensation rather than the guy who blew the crap out of 264 people and killed 3 on a sunny day in Boston.

Lol look at all that sensationalism. But the hypocrisy is what really makes that article, deride click gathering measures yet employ them. Quick moar Facebook reaction links!

But my favorite is that reactionary twitter pic

(click to show/hide)

His hair and facial style looks like other people’s, TERRORISM!

[PosthumanHeresy]

I never thought I would see the day when Fark comments make a FSTDT seem rational in comparison. Oh jeebus where to start with the fail train:

It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good. Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people. That's already what's happening. Showing he had a broken family and a hard past makes him more sympathetic, and as wrong as it is, him looking good makes him even more sympathetic.

How? Why? Are you seriously pulling this out of your ass? I am calling it now you cannot even demonstrate how.

Finally, why the hell should someone take the risk of perpetuating the idolry of him? Oh wait, money.

How are you measuring “the risk of perpetuating the idolry”, is this some sort of butthurt subjective measure?

Some are saying The Rolling Stone Magazine has just crossed that line with their “sexed up” cover shot of Boston bomber, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, pictured in full rock star pout, tousled hair, and dreamy eyes staring coolly into the camera. If you didn’t know better, you’d think he was the latest singer/songwriter sensation rather than the guy who blew the crap out of 264 people and killed 3 on a sunny day in Boston.

Lol look at all that sensationalism. But the hypocrisy is what really makes that article, deride click gathering measures yet employ them. Quick moar Facebook reaction links!

But my favorite is that reactionary twitter pic

(click to show/hide)

His hair and facial style looks like other people’s, TERRORISM!

Thanks for the personal attacks. Always enjoy those. Let's ignore the hundreds of examples of fiction using "attractive" as a shorthand for "good guy". It's not like the fiction and artwork of a society say anything about how they view the world, after all. Let's not get into the fact he already has thousands of mostly-female supporters. After all, there's no way that the fact that thousands of people already see him as a sympathetic figure due to his beauty that using a glam selfie would in any way promote this. You do realize that certain pictures are used for setting a specific tone by the press, right? That's why when Republicans talk about Obama they tend to use pictures where his mouth is open or he has one of the millions of split-second stupid faces we make, but when Democrats are reporting on him they use photos that are normally intended for promotional use.

[PosthumanHeresy]

And, perhaps my hostility towards the media over their coverage of killers seems weird. So, I'm going to just going to post this article as a second article saying similar stuff.

Edit: Linking for credit. Found a thing in an article about Columbine about the book "Columbine" that makes the point, too. The author wrote it to dispel the myths around Columbine and set everything straight.

Cullen concluded that the killers weren't part of the Trench Coat Mafia, that they weren't bullied by other students and that they didn't target popular jocks, African-Americans or any other group. A school shooting wasn't their initial intent, he said. They wanted to bomb their school in an attack they hoped would make them more infamous than Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

I'm not worried about normal people being affected by this cover. Most people can tell that they don't want to make him a hero. However, normal people aren't who we need to worry about. We need to worry about the unhinged. Those who are at the end of their rope and feel like everything's meaningless. They might kill themselves, but they have already been shown to have also chosen to kill others in order to be remembered, and to go down in history. Those are the people we need to worry about, and those are the people that will look at this magazine cover and go "Maybe I should do something like that, and get my face on the cover of Rolling Stone".

[The Illusive Man]

Ladies and gentlemen nowhere in either of PostHumanHeresy’s two posts were the questions of how? and why? answered. Normally I would state that “I am disappoint” but I fully expected such questions to remain unanswered.
Let me break this down. Here is an example:

Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people.

How and why will people, according to your prediction, reach that conclusion from just the picture and selective misinterpretation of the article? With no other influence or previous bias. Please do provide at least an example.

It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good.

I find it funny that you literally ripped a page out of Fox News’s handbook and provided justification for it without a hint of irony or self-awareness.



This standard you have set justifies bias in the media via image impression. Journalism is to overcome such hang-ups and report truthfully and informatively.

Let's ignore the hundreds of examples of fiction using "attractive" as a shorthand for "good guy".

Quick ignore all the aversions listed on that page in addition to the playing with section because it does not fit your argument.

It's not like the fiction and artwork of a society say anything about how they view the world, after all.

[Citation needed] But let’s have some fun with this, FATAL. By the standard you set forth: FATAL being a work of fiction, containing artwork and being published in the United States must then represent how society within the United States views the world. Garb yourself a live one! Over generalization, how does it fucking work?

It's Let's not get into the fact he already has thousands of mostly-female supporters. After all, there's no way that the fact that thousands of people already see him as a sympathetic figure due to his beauty that using a glam selfie would in any way promote this.

Lol good old Argumentum ad populum. How can X amount of people be wrong after all?

[Lithp]

I'm with Ironbite, this topic is pretty masturbatory.

[The Illusive Man]

I'm with Ironbite, this topic is pretty masturbatory.

Always rustle the jimmies.

[Lithp]

I'm with Ironbite, this topic is pretty masturbatory.

Always rustle the jimmies.

Huh?

[ironbite]

No I meant, and I sincerely mean this, WHO THE FLYING FUCK CARES IF ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE PUT THE FACE OF BOMBING SUSPECT NUMBER 2 ON THEIR FRONT COVER!?

Ironbite-this non-issue is such a headache to me that I'm beginning to want to let the fucking BORG ASSIMILATE EARTH!

[PosthumanHeresy]

Even if they read the article, they could still take it the wrong way. I'm sure everyone's seen someone take a completely foreign message from things before. They could see him as vilified hero who was trying to fight for his people.

How and why will people, according to your prediction, reach that conclusion from just the picture and selective misinterpretation of the article? With no other influence or previous bias. Please do provide at least an example.

Did I claim "With no other influence or previous bias"? No. I understand, most won't be affected. However, the type of people who could actually see it that way are the ones who are likely to kill people.

It's a bad thing because it makes bad people look good. Our society has weird hang-ups with attractive = good, ugly = evil. It's a standard shorthand in our media, and by making the Bomber look pretty, you're making him look good.

I find it funny that you literally ripped a page out of Fox News’s handbook and provided justification for it without a hint of irony or self-awareness.



This standard you have set justifies bias in the media via image impression. Journalism is to overcome such hang-ups and report truthfully and informatively.

I didn't justify anything, I said that's what our society does. I have no idea how the hell that's supposed to justify bias in the media. I was saying "this is what is done". I never said "this is what should be done". I was simply saying that when you make someone look pretty, it makes people less likely to be negative towards them. For example, attractive women get lighter sentences than unattractive women, and overall, women get less death penalty sentences for the same crimes that men get them for.

Let's ignore the hundreds of examples of fiction using "attractive" as a shorthand for "good guy".

Quick ignore all the aversions listed on that page in addition to the playing with section because it does not fit your argument.

The fact is, historically, it has leaned more towards playing it straight, and still does. Those who play with it or advert it notice the common trend and purposely play with our expectations.

It's not like the fiction and artwork of a society say anything about how they view the world, after all.

[Citation needed] But let’s have some fun with this, FATAL. By the standard you set forth: FATAL being a work of fiction, containing artwork and being published in the United States must then represent how society within the United States views the world. Garb yourself a live one! Over generalization, how does it fucking work?

You're joking, right? I'm sorry, I was pretty sure this was common knowledge. I was pretty sure that every knew that we study the tales and art of periods of time and societies in order to gain a better insight to them. I was pretty sure we study the art and statues of the Greeks to see their obsession with perfection. I was pretty sure that we study the more realistic artwork of ancient Rome to see how they differed from the Greeks. I was pretty sure we studied the uniform style of the Egyptian artwork to gain a better insight into the ceremonial nature of it, as well as their culture and their creation myths. I was pretty sure that it's a general thing that the creations of a society reflect their culture. I was pretty sure that everyone learned that in high school, but I guess not.

It's Let's not get into the fact he already has thousands of mostly-female supporters. After all, there's no way that the fact that thousands of people already see him as a sympathetic figure due to his beauty that using a glam selfie would in any way promote this.

Lol good old Argumentum ad populum. How can X amount of people be wrong after all?

That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm not saying they're not wrong. In fact, I think they are wrong. I'm saying, if that many people already believe it, then why would you think more can't? It's like going "Well, all the religious people now believe their faiths, but I'm sure nobody would ever convert to them!"

It's amazing how all of your arguments are either flat out wrong, ad hominem attacks, or should be something you learned back in high school.