...good for him!
http://loudwire.com/disturbed-david-draiman-rips-rolling-stone-featuring-accused-bomber-cover/
~Brian~
http://loudwire.com/disturbed-david-draiman-rips-rolling-stone-featuring-accused-bomber-cover/
~Brian~
David Draiman rips Rolling Stone a new ass!
- Thread starter edgeofthorns
- Start date
Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
Basically what it boils down to is that people are too afraid to confront the fact that terrorists don't actually look like monsters. Sometimes they look just like normal kids you might know, and the fact that RS used that pic on their cover really freaks people out. Nevermind that it was used by the NYT 2 months prior and no one gave a damn (http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/embedded/1000x600/20130719-nyt-x600-1374258585.jpg).
People think RS is some fluff magazine, but they're one of the few bastions of hard news left in our pathetic media operations (think of why Gen. McChrystal found new employment). I think that's why people's panties are in such disarray over this. That and the fact that they all suffer from moral-outrage overdrive and algae-thin skin.
Sorry, Draiman's being an oversensitive moron this time. I frequently agree with him, though.
People think RS is some fluff magazine, but they're one of the few bastions of hard news left in our pathetic media operations (think of why Gen. McChrystal found new employment). I think that's why people's panties are in such disarray over this. That and the fact that they all suffer from moral-outrage overdrive and algae-thin skin.
Sorry, Draiman's being an oversensitive moron this time. I frequently agree with him, though.
dcowboys311
Member
Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
Draiman's not the only one. Musicians ranging from Dave Navarro to Mike Portnoy are all up in arms over this cover. While I get their argument that Rolling Stone should stick to covering music, they all seem to think that the magazine is glorifying what this kid did, and that's not the case at all. Mardoch hit the nail on the head with this one.
Stay metal. Never rust.
Albert
Stay metal. Never rust.
Albert
March Hare
Member
RS has never been one to shy away from putting bad people on the covers. Charles Manson, Roman Polanski and others. It's not about glorifying what he did more an attempt to figure out why he did what he did.
Diabolik
Member
I honestly think they did it to get the media talking about it...when was the last time you saw any mainstream press talk about a magazine. I think the big issue that people are upset about is that they made him look like some indie rock kid. It wasnt like they took some highschool picture from the year book and used it...they have some artsy looking picture of the kid. While I am not offended by it but I can see why many are. I wonder how many of these celeb musicians who are blasting the magazine now in a year beg at the chance to be on the cover.
But back to my point...I think they knew going in that it would cause a stir...thus getting people to talk about it. I am sure as many who say they would not buy it there will be just as many who will run out and buy it.
But back to my point...I think they knew going in that it would cause a stir...thus getting people to talk about it. I am sure as many who say they would not buy it there will be just as many who will run out and buy it.
Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
You mean a selfie that's been published before? One that's been shown on pretty much every major news station already? It's just a lucky selfie that doesn't totally suck.
TribunalRecords
Record Label(s)/Vocalist
Anyone who says Rolling Stone should just stick to reporting on music has NEVER actually read a copy of the magazine or only read the articles about themselves. Rolling Stone, like someone mentioned before, cover TOUGH subjects and has great, investigative, articles by authors like Matt Taibbi and more.
There is a reason he is on the cover and with all the uproar it has caused it has worked. Reporting is sometimes a dirty job, but someone has to do it because living life with blinders on only allows these kind of actions to keep happening. It's about awareness. Instead of people freaking out and trying to get the magazine banned (equivalent of burying your head in the sand) maybe they should spend that time actually READING the article and then seeing what you take from it.
There is a reason he is on the cover and with all the uproar it has caused it has worked. Reporting is sometimes a dirty job, but someone has to do it because living life with blinders on only allows these kind of actions to keep happening. It's about awareness. Instead of people freaking out and trying to get the magazine banned (equivalent of burying your head in the sand) maybe they should spend that time actually READING the article and then seeing what you take from it.
nomisofsiman
Member
TribunalRecords
Record Label(s)/Vocalist
I SECOND THAT! I MEAN SEE HOW STUPID IT LOOKS JUST SAYING SOMETHING NORMAL? SILLY, JUST SILLY.
Justin G
Member
Justin G
Member
Also, this whole issue doesn't bother me. The article does anything but glorify the bomber, and the cover is effective at pointing out the contrast in an otherwise normal young American and the horrific acts he's responsible for.
And as Bob said, it got people talking about Rolling Stone, and you can't buy that kind of publicity.
And as Bob said, it got people talking about Rolling Stone, and you can't buy that kind of publicity.
My thing about the RS cover is not that they did it - without even reading the article, I knew what they were aiming for - but more that a. it's too soon, and b. I firmly believe that there should be no publicity for people who commit acts like this, even posthumously, because it encourages others who might be inclined to similar acts. If RS was doing it just for the publicity, they got it, but if they want what they say to be taken seriously, this wasn't the way to do it.
Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
The fact that Rolling Stone put the bomber's picture there to simply stir up controversy, in order to sell magazines, is sad in itself. I can honestly say that I've never desired to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I could probably count on one hand how many times I've actually looked at one. With that said, I'll stick to reading reviews of music that I actually care about.
~Brian~
~Brian~
dcowboys311
Member
Rolling Stone does not only cover music, and hasn't in a long long time.
Out of curiosity, what major terrorist/murderers/etc HAVEN'T gotten the cover of major magazines in the past few decades? This is nothing new or unexpected.
Spot on! That's why I don't give a rat's ass about RS and never have. I'd rather read reviews of music, period.
~Brian~
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
So when every other news outlet put that selfie on their frontpage, and when the 24 hour news networks were interviewing his friends about how cool he was to them, you weren't outraged and it was okay? When Time Magazine put Osama on the cover only a few months after 9/11, that was ok? But when your precious music related magazine, which clearly unbeknonwst to you has had OJ Simpson and Charles Manson on its cover before, does a cover story on him and a bunch of dumb aging rockers cry about it, that's where the line should be drawn?
Besides the fact that we have freedom of press in this country, doing a feature story on someone - regardless of who that person is - is not an endorsement, and you have to be dumb as SHIT to automatically assume it is one. To paraphrase Bill Maher from last weekend, Jaws isn't portrayed as a hero just because he's on the cover of the film he's named after.
Anyone who gets "outraged" over this, including Draiman, probably requires better education.
Similar threads
