JCC Rolling Stone possibly steps in it

Ha ha, he's even in a literal spotlight. What a rock star treatment he's getting.

 

Jim Morrison was sexy and all but one of my father in law's school mates, a bookstore regular, went to FSU with him and said he was already full of himself then. Barnes & Noble will be stocking this issue. We should have it tomorrow.

 

On a side note and amusing...There's an article called On The Bus With Willie Nelson...he hangs out at some ashram near me where the recently deceased guru gave Ram Dass a bad experience he'll never forget. crazy story there.

 

I don't think the police sergeant who released those 2 photos should be punished too harshly. No harm done, and you can understand why he was emotional enough to release those photos.

 

In conclusion, I don't get the BFD.

 

I'm not upset by it, but I understand why. And it's different from the Bin Laden one, or the Manson one.

It's because it's Rolling Stone. And they chose a photo of him that is one of the more "glamorous," that makes him look like a rockstar. And even if that photo was used, it wouldn't be as controversial if they edited the photo to have jailbars in front of it, or edited the photo to look like a mugshot, or said something condemning of him on the cover. Or just use another photo of him, like the ones of him caught on video at the marathon or at the gas station the night he was caught.

Again, doesn't upset me, but they really should have thought this out better.

 

Is the cover of Rolling Stone more of a cultural icon than the cover of Newsweek, though? I mean granted, pretentious though this may sound, my universe probably orbits closer to Newsweek than Rolling Stone in general, but it seems to me that those are both actual Things. Granted that OBL photo has targeting sights superimposed on it, but I suppose I'm just not willing or able to draw that fine a distinction. Other folks may be able to.

Plus, you know, it's probably actually worth a conversation about how radicalization happens, and acknowledging that not all people who do really terrible things are born ordained to do so, but I KNOW that's too fine a distinction to draw for the Fox and Friends crowd. And I say this as a person who voted for McCain.

 

id **** 'im

 

Yes.

 

Umm, so is the Manson one.

 

Bin Laden is average-looking and a middle-age man and dressed in A-rab Muslim garb. That's why it didn't matter.

 

Are people still inventing reasons be butthurt by that image?

 

I'm coming late to this discussion, but yeah, chalk me up as one of those who just. doesn't. get. the controversy. It's a picture of the guy as he looks, or looked before the bombings. His hair is disheveled, it's not "glamorous" to my eye in the least. Dude exists. Here's a picture of him. Inside there's an article about him. I would think that would be "end of", but apparently not.

 

Read the rest of my post.

 

I'm certain not going to start doing that now.

 

I always draw little mustaches and glasses on all the pictures in Rolling Stone, so it really doesn't matter to me.

 

A. They did say something condemning of him. They said he "became a monster."

B. Really, they should have to photoshop him? Should they put devil horns on, too? This just strikes me as ridiculous.

 

If they have a article inside exploring the bomber, then they have every right to put his image on the cover. The main story is about him.

 

He's so dreamy. I'd go gay for him. LET HIM GO SO WE CAN BE GAY!

...

Wait, was I brainwashed into thinking he was nice by Rolling Stone?

 

I said it doesn't upset me, but they should have foreseen the backlash and could have done it differently.

 

Has anyone read the article yet? Are all of the pics of the bomber in said article hawt?