Why the rolling stone cover is causing such reaction

johnielvis · Jul 20, 2013

It's natural--people want to be told what's right and wrong and that there is no in-between. It keeps them assured that they are always in the right. See this article--hopefully this is the beginning of a resurgance of media to make people THINK for themselves instead of being told what to think.

http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/2013/07/17/framing-cain/

JohnRichard · Jul 20, 2013

I saw that picture and thought "I don't understand why a picture of some guy is causing any reaction", then I realised that it was a picture of the guy that caused some destruction.
My next thought was ""I don't understand why a picture of some guy is causing any reaction".

markbarendt · Jul 20, 2013

Interesting read Johnielvis, thanks.

Chrismat · Jul 20, 2013

The negative reaction to the photograph is understandable when Rolling Stone is trying to sell the issue with that cover in the same area where people were murdered and so many people injured. What is insulting to people in the New England area and especially Massachusetts is the doctoring of the photo to make it like a cover shot of Jim Morrison.

I have a feeling that if the bombing happened in Ignacio, CO. or Lexington, KY, (thank God it wasn't) it would be easier to understand.

No one is being 'told' what to think.

pstake · Jul 20, 2013

As a recovering news reporter, I have made a deliberate departure from the media. Unless this was posted here, I would not have known about it. But I agree with the OP.

At first glance, what RS has done with this photo is shown us that this was a human being just like that guy riding his bike out in front of your house or that person behind you at the grocery store. A flattering photo put through the wonders of Adobe's finest can make anyone look like Jim Morrison, etcetera.

This person is not some other species called terrorist. It's a person with motivations and sympathies like anyone else. Something in society caught him up in a callous current of horrible violence, unable to sympathize with the rest of us. The irony of that is people looking at him, now, get caught in a similar current, want to ignore the social problems that contribute to the creation of a monster and chock it up to some people are born monsters.

It's not so simple as some people are good and some are bad. This is the same simplistic thinking that led people to follow Calvin and his idea of predestination, which most of society has long since abandoned. It's less taxing on the mind to deal in absolutes and most of us don't want our minds taxed by the media. We want our values reinforced.

I grew up in West Texas but spent many formative years (18 ~26) in Boston and its environs. I was back home once when a report came over the radio about Iraqi prisoners, many of them civilians, getting piled naked in prison camps, American soldiers electrifying their balls with stun guns. Torture, effectively. I was in the car with my dad when I heard that. I was pissed off, ashamed, confused, abhorred. My dad explained to me that those prisoners are not ordinary people. "They are Iraqis."

My dad is not a monster. But he was obviously calloused by something and more than willing to separate good and evil along the most convenient lines available through the filter of traditional media.

Rolling Stone has a history of this type of reporting, of forcing people to grapple with the reality in the gray. Its coverage of the Duke LaCrosse Team rape scandal comes to mind. As does the article it published 40 years ago, Hunter Thompson's masterpiece (which is possibly the finest piece of journalism ever penned), Strange Rumblings in Aztlan.

This is all just my opinion about the media and the tact of what I consider to be a fine source of news. In no way do I mean to make light of a tragedy.

semi-ambivalent · Jul 20, 2013

RS is an empty rag left over from a time that no longer exists, covering an industry that is alien to what it originally was. It is not at all surprising they would jump on such an opportunity in an effort to goose sales of their collection of adverts. Next month it will be back to photographs of the Beatles, articles on Eric Clapton's guitar collection and some reviews of a couple transient hip-hop acts in an effort to still appear relevant.

(I was a CREEM man. They at least had the dignity to implode in concert with their subject industry.)

s-a

Gerald C Koch · Jul 20, 2013

semi-ambivalent said:
RS is an empty rag left over from a time that no longer exists, covering an industry that is alien to what it originally was. It is not at all surprising they would jump on such an opportunity in an effort to goose sales of their collection of adverts.

Dead on!

Chrismat · Jul 20, 2013

I cannot stand the results of the acts of terrorists being labeled as 'tragedy.' The Boston Marathon bombing was not a 'tragedy'. A tragedy is a hurricane, tornado, etc. The deliberate targeting of the marathon runners and spectators was an atrocity.

semi-ambivalent · Jul 20, 2013

Chrismat said:
The Boston Marathon bombing was not a 'tragedy'. A tragedy is a hurricane, tornado, etc. The deliberate targeting of the marathon runners and spectators was an atrocity.

I had a composition teacher in high school who said "tragedy" originally meant a situation involving the cancellation of surprise good fortune or luck. As such, a hurricane would not have been a tragedy. A tragedy would be the fate of the young woman who survived the SF plane crash by being thrown clear of the fuselage only to be run over by the fire truck arriving to save their lives. But language is a living thing and changes with its times. The carnival barker ethos of the news media is not helping things either: We are awash in tragedies and heros alike.

regards,

s-a

L Gebhardt · Jul 20, 2013

johnielvis said:
It's natural--people want to be told what's right and wrong and that there is no in-between. It keeps them assured that they are always in the right. See this article--hopefully this is the beginning of a resurgance of media to make people THINK for themselves instead of being told what to think.

http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/2013/07/17/framing-cain/

it seems to be a pretty good read on the situation. I am however surprised to see that from a site called Hot Chicks with Douchebags

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 20, 2013

L Gebhardt said:
it seems to be a pretty good read on the situation. I am however surprised to see that from a site called Hot Chicks with Douchebags

Hot Chicks with Douchebags
Dead Link Removed

Tom1956 · Jul 20, 2013

I believe the most humorous and accurate title of the media is "the drive-bys". While I certainly have no time or desire to sit and listen to talk radio, I have heard this description, and it's dead-on. I cannot think of a single subject the media espoused that doesn't make me roll my eyes. And at 56, I never read a Rolling Stone or Mad magazine in my life. They're just selling paper, that's all.

semi-ambivalent · Jul 20, 2013

johnielvis said:
http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/2013/07/17/framing-cain/

God, that was some self-indulgent, sophomoric writing. Irrespective of the message.

s-a

MartinCrabtree · Jul 20, 2013

It's causing an uproar because lacking any real focus the majority of US citizens wander about aimlessly seeking something to rally for or against. Matters not which,only a cause for action.

Do not take the above to mean I do not feel the kid we're talking about isn't deserving of severe punishment. I do.

However I feel for a young man (who has a life wasted in the land of opportunity) so deluded by radical groups bent on creating death and destruction. How did he (and his brother) become so out of touch that killing innocents became the only action available? That's the story behind the image. If it's not it should be. No one was paying attention.

omaha · Jul 20, 2013

Chrismat said:
I cannot stand the results of the acts of terrorists being labeled as 'tragedy.' The Boston Marathon bombing was not a 'tragedy'. A tragedy is a hurricane, tornado, etc. The deliberate targeting of the marathon runners and spectators was an atrocity.

Precisely.

omaha · Jul 20, 2013

I hope this cover causes people to examine their attachment to the wasteland called celebrity culture.

markbarendt · Jul 20, 2013

Chrismat said:
The negative reaction to the photograph is understandable when Rolling Stone is trying to sell the issue with that cover in the same area where people were murdered and so many people injured. What is insulting to people in the New England area and especially Massachusetts is the doctoring of the photo to make it like a cover shot of Jim Morrison.

I have a feeling that if the bombing happened in Ignacio, CO. or Lexington, KY, (thank God it wasn't) it would be easier to understand.

No one is being 'told' what to think.

You are making an assumption about me and my friends here in the wilds of Colorado. Assumptions are never a good idea.

A good friend of my was lucky enough to evacuate before the collapse of the twin towers on 9-11. She was there for training.

Also on 9-11 as the towers were falling I was delivering a life insurance policy to another friend, a pilot, he was on days off. His normal route was one of the runs that hit the towers.

My son and daughter-in-law got degrees at the same university that layed Jim Jones' foundation for life.

The photo and the article are meant to make a point. It calls into question the assumptions we make about those around us, it questions our "everyday" biases and prejudices.

It asks something very hard for most people, to understand that "somebody like me" could do something truly heinous.

I fully support RS's choice to publish this. IMO we, America, need to quit profiling people by there looks, their clothes, their job, their status...

markbarendt · Jul 20, 2013

semi-ambivalent said:
RS is an empty rag left over from a time that no longer exists, covering an industry that is alien to what it originally was. It is not at all surprising they would jump on such an opportunity in an effort to goose sales of their collection of adverts. Next month it will be back to photographs of the Beatles, articles on Eric Clapton's guitar collection and some reviews of a couple transient hip-hop acts in an effort to still appear relevant.

(I was a CREEM man. They at least had the dignity to implode in concert with their subject industry.)

s-a

What in the world does this rant have to do with the subject matter or the idea that is being expressed?

Why are you shooting the messenger?

eddie · Jul 20, 2013

markbarendt said:
I fully support RS's choice to publish this. IMO we, America, needs to quit profiling people by there looks, their clothes, their job, their status...

I agree. It's important to know what makes a person turn into a murderous monster. The more we know about their motivations, the easier it will be to predict, and prevent.

tkamiya · Jul 20, 2013

I am having really hard time understanding why many people today have this tendency to form extremely strong opinion about something without really giving something a thought and comprehend the issue fully. Reaction to today's issue seem to be lead by impulse and impression rather than logic, facts, and thought.

Coupled with today's instant communication, once some opinion or two get started, it seem to grow on its own power, drive social consensus, and political directions. Then all the sudden, something new happens and the process repeat all over again and yesterday's issue gets completely forgotten.

I takes me a good while to form an opinion, let alone, an informed opinion. Maybe I'm just slow.

Tom1956 · Jul 20, 2013

The media needs a complete overhaul of their insufferably tire out narrative.

eddie · Jul 20, 2013

Tom- Have you read the article?

Tom1956 · Jul 20, 2013

No, thank you. So perhaps I should have not chimed in. I avoid the media--it raises my dander and makes a jerk out of me in the wrong places. My solutions to problems do not seem to fit the prevailing politic. I'll say no more, as I value my membership on this site and don't want to be blocked for off-topic discussion.

eddie · Jul 20, 2013

So, you've made a judgement about an article you've never read, and an industry you find "insufferable", although you avoid it?
Any others that have passed judgement without actually reading it?

semi-ambivalent · Jul 20, 2013

markbarendt said:
What in the world does this rant have to do with the subject matter or the idea that is being expressed?

Why are you shooting the messenger?

Mark,

Good thing I saw this, I've been in the darkroom all day.

If by messenger you mean Rolling Stone well, yes. What, may one no longer hold a derogatory opinion about something, like a magazine? Did I fail the Politeness Squad? In their choice of cover image Rolling Stone, the erstwhile grande dame of Rock music reporting, did not bring anybody's message except their own, unless they are a tool for another party. (I'm open to that too.) I gave my honest and long-held opinion on RS. As it is a long-held opinion it is not a "rant". Are you using that term to squelch comment?

Consensus abounds that that person's image, anywhere, is a lightning rod. My "rant" is that it's on the cover of that particular magazine. Rather far afield from guitars and lycra pants, don't you think? Why it is there was the subject of my post. I thought that was patently clear. Apologies. If it was too far off-thread, tough. The mods know what to do.

I'm editing to add that my post did Not. Even. Comment on the man on the cover. Neither did I use any currently hot-button vocabulary, like 'profiling'.

Regards,
s-a

Why the rolling stone cover is causing such reaction

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency