David Draiman rips Rolling Stone a new ass!

[edgeofthorns]

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.

You're not understanding me. I don't read or watch the news my man. Anyone that knows me personally knows this. Actually, some tease me about it. I'm being serious. I do follow financial news closely, due to my career. Otherwise, I'm fairly clueless and I choose to be that way. It helps my overall mood I guess. Judging from how outraged you are at me, I'd recommend you do the same.

~Brian~

 

[Diabolik]

You're not understanding me. I don't read or watch the news my man. Anyone that knows me personally knows this. Actually, some tease me about it. I'm being serious. I do follow financial news closely, due to my career. Otherwise, I'm fairly clueless and I choose to be that way. It helps my overall mood I guess. Judging from how outraged you are at me, I'd recommend you do the same.

~Brian~

Brain...I am the same way too. I barely watch the news. I will read things here and there but most of the time it is full of lies and half truths. I have enough interest and hobbies to keep me busy. I ususally just keep tabs on certain hot topics to fire people up on facebook and at work with remarks.

I am not outraged that he is on the cover. Like many have said...this isn't the first time someone like him is on the cover of a magazine. I think it is the way they are selling it on the cover. Kind of making him look like a rockstar and stuff. Most of the magazines that have people like him on the cover show a picture of the person not in this light. I understand they want to show that he was just like you and I. In the end I think this was all about Rolling Stone getting the press they need to survive.

On a side note of interest....people have said that copycats will see this and see he made the cover. Not many people who are terrorist and blow stuff up make it past the first mission. So they won't be alive to see themselves on the cover a magazine. Another side note...people who are looking for fame doing these types of actions like for example the BTK Killer. he got off the thrill of people talking about him and the press putting articles about him in their papers. One of his things in his jail terms is that he is never allowed to read / see articles pertaining to him. So basically he will never know if people are talking about him or not. I read about this after he was sentenced.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

You're not understanding me. I don't read or watch the news my man. Anyone that knows me personally knows this. Actually, some tease me about it. I'm being serious. I do follow financial news closely, due to my career. Otherwise, I'm fairly clueless and I choose to be that way. It helps my overall mood I guess. Judging from how outraged you are at me, I'd recommend you do the same.

~Brian~

I'm not "outraged" at you, or anyone else. My point was more or less about Draiman and those who are crying over things for no other reason than because they like the way their tears feel as they roll off their cheeks.

 

[General Zod]

As with most thing, I agree with Matt Taibbi...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...lling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719

 

[Justin G]

As with most thing, I agree with Matt Taibbi...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...lling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719

Matt Taibbi is awesome. If you ever want to find out how the financial crisis happened and who to blame, read his work. If more people did we'd have a torches and pitchforks riot in DC.

 

[jaimek]

So we, as a society, should never publicly discuss the tragedies that have befallen us?

It's not the publicly-discussing part that's the problem, it's the media plastering the names and faces everywhere for months at a time. There are people who commit mass murders (or fantasize about it) who are *encouraged* by the idea that their deeds will live on in infamy, even if they die in the attempt.

 

[Hammerlock]

I mean, they call him a "monster" right on the cover, underneath the picture. Juxtaposing what looks like an all-American cover boy with the knowledge (and, I repeat, a reminder) that he's actually a callous murderer is an interesting statement. Now, if they were giving credence to the outrageous "He was framed" movement, spearheaded by the most colossal idiots since that lawyer in Oliver Stone's JFK, then I would be really offended that a major magazine would stoop that low. As it is, though, they're clearly not being complimentary with their byline.

I can't understand what all the fuss is about. So he killed and maimed innocent people. Ignoring him and hoping he'll go away would be a dreadful mistake. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We need to understand psychopaths in order to stop them in the future, and that means we need to collectively, as a society, LOOK at at this fucked up kid and ask ourselves how he went so wrong. Pretending he's gone forever and trying to bury his memory away somewhere would be shortsighted.

 

[General Zod]

The other long standing debate the picture speaks to is that of profiling. Ever since 9/11 the country has been discussing the morality and efficacy of profiling. One of the questions I think the cover asks is, "If you're someone who has advocated for profiling, would you have stopped this kid?"

 

[jaimek]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We need to understand psychopaths in order to stop them in the future, and that means we need to collectively, as a society, LOOK at at this fucked up kid and ask ourselves how he went so wrong. Pretending he's gone forever and trying to bury his memory away somewhere would be shortsighted.

I said nothing about ignoring or burying it. I said a. it's too soon, and b. plastering his face everywhere encourages copycats.

 

[Justin G]

I said nothing about ignoring or burying it. I said a. it's too soon, and b. plastering his face everywhere encourages copycats.

I'm guessing the influence of Rolling Stone on would-be jihadis is pretty small.

 

[Mardoch]

I'm guessing the influence of Rolling Stone on would-be jihadis is pretty small.

This. It's not exactly Inspire.

 

[Hammerlock]

I said nothing about ignoring or burying it. I said a. it's too soon, and b. plastering his face everywhere encourages copycats.

"Too soon" is a cop-out. It's been nearly 12 years since angry young muslims, not much older than this one, flew two planes into the World Trade Center and killed thousands of people. Why can't we talk about why muslims are angry with America? Because this asshole did something lately, suddenly the moratorium on discussion is back on? And what about next time this happens, it'll be time to talk about this young muslim, but we can't because it will be "too soon" after the next tragedy by another angry young fundamentalist. Face the issue now, or people will continue to die, and it will forever be "too soon".

This is what I mean about how people who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. History doesn't mean just stuff that happened before you were born. Three months ago is history now, and there is every likelihood that somebody else is planning to repeat it at this very moment. If all the concentrated power of the United States of America can't stop this from happening after 12 years of war against these kinds of people, then we need to discuss other options for how to stop it from happening again. While we dither about "too soon", people will die.

 

[Stingray11214]

I think what people are forgetting is that, although few consider it a "music magazine" in the true sense of the word, people consider Rolling Stone to be a magazine dedicated to Pop Culture. Even though his picture was in the Times, Boston Globe and other news outlets, those outlets are for the reporting of general news. Rolling Stone may be pounding out hard news like the Village Voice, but neither are considered by the general populace as "general" news outlets. They are considered 'tastemakers" in the area of pop culture. This is why so many are outraged over the Tsarnaev photo. He looks cute and hip and not look like what the general media says is a terrorist. So, they are being seen as trying to make Tsarnaev a pop culture icon like they did with Charles Manson. Like it or not, Manson became, and remains, an icon for '60s pop culture. And, that is largely as a result of the publicity Rolling Stone gave him at the time.

 

[edgeofthorns]

I think what people are forgetting is that, although few consider it a "music magazine" in the true sense of the word, people consider Rolling Stone to be a magazine dedicated to Pop Culture. Even though his picture was in the Times, Boston Globe and other news outlets, those outlets are for the reporting of general news. Rolling Stone may be pounding out hard news like the Village Voice, but neither are considered by the general populace as "general" news outlets. They are considered 'tastemakers" in the area of pop culture. This is why so many are outraged over the Tsarnaev photo. He looks cute and hip and not look like what the general media says is a terrorist. So, they are being seen as trying to make Tsarnaev a pop culture icon like they did with Charles Manson. Like it or not, Manson became, and remains, an icon for '60s pop culture. And, that is largely as a result of the publicity Rolling Stone gave him at the time.

I agree with your post. Call me narrow minded or whatever, but I would never look to Rolling Stone as a primary source of news coverage. Personally, I think a fitting tribute to Boston and the marathon itself would've been more appropriate than his skinny ass on the cover. I'm sure that wouldn't be "edgy" enough for the general population though.

~Brian~

 

[edgeofthorns]

Brain...I am the same way too. I barely watch the news. I will read things here and there but most of the time it is full of lies and half truths. I have enough interest and hobbies to keep me busy. I ususally just keep tabs on certain hot topics to fire people up on facebook and at work with remarks.

I am not outraged that he is on the cover. Like many have said...this isn't the first time someone like him is on the cover of a magazine. I think it is the way they are selling it on the cover. Kind of making him look like a rockstar and stuff. Most of the magazines that have people like him on the cover show a picture of the person not in this light. I understand they want to show that he was just like you and I. In the end I think this was all about Rolling Stone getting the press they need to survive.

On a side note of interest....people have said that copycats will see this and see he made the cover. Not many people who are terrorist and blow stuff up make it past the first mission. So they won't be alive to see themselves on the cover a magazine. Another side note...people who are looking for fame doing these types of actions like for example the BTK Killer. he got off the thrill of people talking about him and the press putting articles about him in their papers. One of his things in his jail terms is that he is never allowed to read / see articles pertaining to him. So basically he will never know if people are talking about him or not. I read about this after he was sentenced.

Dammit Bob, I agree with you!

~Brian~

 

[dcowboys311]

Call me narrow minded or whatever

Liberate your mind...

 

[General Zod]

I think what people are forgetting is that, although few consider it a "music magazine" in the true sense of the word, people consider Rolling Stone to be a magazine dedicated to Pop Culture. Even though his picture was in the Times, Boston Globe and other news outlets, those outlets are for the reporting of general news. Rolling Stone may be pounding out hard news like the Village Voice, but neither are considered by the general populace as "general" news outlets.

I think the question is, what's more important, what the public "considers" Rolling Stone to be or what it actually is? As Taibbi points out, people seem to have an inaccurate idea of what Rolling Stone is. Taibbi's own reporting during the financial crisis was as good as it gets. And in a day and age where journalism has devolved to a point where mainstream sources demonstrate little more integrity than the National Enquirer, can we really afford to dismiss good journalism based on misconceived perceptions about its editors?

There seems to be an amazing amount of people commenting on this cover (I'm not talking about here, just in general). I'm curious to know what percentage actually read the Rolling Stone article and what percentage are literally judging a book by its cover.

 

[Mardoch]

I think the question is, what's more important, what the public "considers" Rolling Stone to be or what it actually is? As Taibbi points out, people seem to have an inaccurate idea of what Rolling Stone is. Taibbi's own reporting during the financial crisis was as good as it gets. And in a day and age where journalism has devolved to a point where mainstream sources demonstrate little more integrity than the National Enquirer, can we really afford to dismiss good journalism based on misconceived perceptions about its editors?

There seems to be an amazing amount of people commenting on this cover (I'm not talking about here, just in general). I'm curious to know what percentage actually read the Rolling Stone article and what percentage are literally judging a book by its cover.

This. Plus...you know...you can't judge a book by its cover...

 

[Stingray11214]

I think the question is, what's more important, what the public "considers" Rolling Stone to be or what it actually is? As Taibbi points out, people seem to have an inaccurate idea of what Rolling Stone is. Taibbi's own reporting during the financial crisis was as good as it gets. And in a day and age where journalism has devolved to a point where mainstream sources demonstrate little more integrity than the National Enquirer, can we really afford to dismiss good journalism based on misconceived perceptions about its editors?

There seems to be an amazing amount of people commenting on this cover (I'm not talking about here, just in general). I'm curious to know what percentage actually read the Rolling Stone article and what percentage are literally judging a book by its cover.

Let me put this in another way:

Heavy Metal promotes Satanism, Manowar is a heavy metal band, therefore Manowar promotes Satanism.

Now, you and I and a good many millions know that this is BS. However, to millions more, it is the PERCEPTION that matters most. Therefore, you can try convincing these people from now until the end of time, or until Van Canto headlines PPUSA, whichever comes first, these people will still believe that heavy metal promotes Satanism.

Now, if you ask people what Rolling Stone is, I can guarantee you that they will say things like "A magazine of culture", "A pop culture magazine" or a "major source for the shaping of pop culture". You will NOT hear "a magazine of serious journalism". That, to the average person, is not what Rolling Stone is. THIS is the reason why people have their panties in a twist. FEW people see RS like they would see Time or U.S. News and World Report. So, if they saw Tsarnaev's photo on Time's cover, it would be "ho hum". If he was named Man of the Year, it would still be met with a "ho hum". Why? Because Time's Man/Person of the Year award is for newsworthyness. Hitler and Stalin were also awarded the title of Man of the Year, and both make Tsarnaev look like the Dalai Lama, to say the least.

However, RS is NOT considered a news magazine. It is considered to be a taste maker in American pop culture. By putting Tsarnaev on the cover, they are trying to position him like they positioned Charles Manson: into a millennial pop culture icon. Remember, many people know what Tsarnaev did. However, many of these same people regard Tsarnaev as hip and cool, and some of these very same arbiters of what is hip and cool will even go as far as calling him a hero. RS' article plays right into the sympathy as an arbiter of pop culture, and this is the reason why you have the outrage.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Now, if you ask people what Rolling Stone is, I can guarantee you that they will say things like "A magazine of culture", "A pop culture magazine" or a "major source for the shaping of pop culture". You will NOT hear "a magazine of serious journalism". That, to the average person, is not what Rolling Stone is. THIS is the reason why people have their panties in a twist. FEW people see RS like they would see Time or U.S. News and World Report. So, if they saw Tsarnaev's photo on Time's cover, it would be "ho hum". If he was named Man of the Year, it would still be met with a "ho hum". Why? Because Time's Man/Person of the Year award is for newsworthyness. Hitler and Stalin were also awarded the title of Man of the Year, and both make Tsarnaev look like the Dalai Lama, to say the least.

So what you're saying is that most people are morons who can't read for shit and jump to conclusions based off of their own idiocy? Totally agree!

However, RS is NOT considered a news magazine. It is considered to be a taste maker in American pop culture. By putting Tsarnaev on the cover, they are trying to position him like they positioned Charles Manson: into a millennial pop culture icon. Remember, many people know what Tsarnaev did. However, many of these same people regard Tsarnaev as hip and cool, and some of these very same arbiters of what is hip and cool will even go as far as calling him a hero. RS' article plays right into the sympathy as an arbiter of pop culture, and this is the reason why you have the outrage.

The fact that people are colossally stupid doesn't mean the press should censor itself though.