'Rolling Stone' Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm — Page 4

I will add that whatever that "point" is they are trying to make is the real mystery. There is no "one answer fits all" point to mass murders. It's many points, many demented points. Some with no logic at all.

The media makes it their job to probe into the "why." Into the heads of insane people.

These younger men are (usually) quiet killers who may or may not blog about their feelings, may or may not talk to or with anyone, but they have so much built up anger and rage that it overpowers them. I think it could be any number of reasons that they feel the way they do. But when they get to the point where they're going to start shooting in a blaze of glory (and that "glory" keeps growing bigger and bigger today), they can take comfort in knowing the media will see to it they are heard, long after they are gone.

There will be no "tree falling in the woods where no one hears it." No "shot in the dark."

It will be cover-boy status on Rolling Stone. Head shots on every TV station in America. Their names and faces will be known and remembered.

---

I'm also not enamored of RS's subtle reference to Jim Morrison.

---

Best12, like Finding Namo, I'm having difficulty following your argument. I assume you aren't suggesting that the media ignore major catastrophic events perpetrated by people. But I am not quite sure what you are suggesting; that the media cover them but not bother to look into the people who caused them, their backstories and motivations, how they came to commit their acts? Or is your complaint here specific to Rolling Stone and this particular treatment? Would you object to a documentary about Tsarnaev? Do you object to the Columbine murderers having appeared on the cover of Time? Did you have problems that people like Charlie Manson were the subjects of public and media fascination? Do you have an objection to documentaries and features about the the Manson Family and the Columbine killers? Are you drawing a distinction between world leaders who are war criminals, perpetrators of mass murder and torture making the cover of magazines and people who were neither famous nor infamous before their crimes? Are you drawing a distinction between political terrorism, other mass murderers and political terrorists who hold elected (or otherwise acquired) political office, and, if so, what's behind these distinction?s

Sorry to sound like I'm giving you the third degree; I'm sincerely interested in understanding your views on this.

Updated On: 7/19/13 at 09:25 PM

personally i am hoping that this is just the first in a series of pieces on bombers. i can't wait to see eric rudolph's come hither cover.

---

well, i think we coulda found a sexier pic of lee couldn't we?

---

---

You commend him for it? Okay, I really *am* trying to see how the Rolling Stone picture is going to inspire terrorists but the picture of the bleeding "warrior brother of a martyr" is not?

Boston Magazine always wants to generate traffic to its website, Rolling Stone wants people to buy the magazine at the few existing newsstands that still carry it. Why is the one commendable and the other an outrage?

PS I had no idea the man who killed Kennedy was a teabagger.

---

Updated On: 7/19/13 at 11:33 AM

Liza's Headband, I'm so sorry to hear that, I hope he or she is on the way to as full a recovery as possible.

Thank you, Henrik. She partially lost her hearing and sight, due to the blast, but it only turned out to be temporary (we all thought it would be permanent). She is still recovering but will be alright. I cannot imagine the mental and emotional scarring she has, though.

ETA: Namo, from reading the Boards at the time I do recall that you had personal connections as well. My point was that I view this through a different prism. But I do respect you and enjoy your posts, so we'll just agree to disagree.

Updated On: 7/19/13 at 11:58 AM

Very glad to hear that, Liza's. It is indeed unimaginable and I hope she is getting a great deal of help and support.

^ I second that

Except for perhaps the empathy part, but definitely the thought that this is more disturbing and distasteful. The people at Rolling Stones have a business agenda: selling magazines and being talked about. I don't like this action, but I understand it in light of that business angle.The response, especially coming from a police sergeant, feels wrong.

Updated On: 7/19/13 at 12:46 PM

And I say this as pretty much a first amendment absolutist but... if we are going to have to anticipate the unintended consequences of every publication, wouldn't these new photos serve as better lone wolf terrorist recruitment photos than the Rolling Stone cover?

---