Rolling Stone

[paints]

So, it was ok for Fox News to use this exact same image back in April?

What about Time? Using, on their cover, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh, the boys from Columbine?

Selective outrage?

The difference is Fox News and Time deliver world events and news. Nobody looked at that image in any other way then other than as a picture in relation to the story. Rolling Stone is a publication towards entertainment, putting the same picture to be viewed in a different light.

Have you read Rolling Stone? It's never been just entertainment, even from the beginning.

It's no CNN world news either.

Which aint saying a whole lot either..

[jorhea]

Looks like a pretty sore subject. Maybe should have been in debates! I personally think it was wrong to have one of the Boston bombers on the cover of any magazine but as someone else said, it is their magazine and they can put what they want in or on it.

[dmitchn1]

It's a magazine, magazines are based on controversy that's what makes them interesting to people. Personally I've always been interested in the reason behind why people do the things they do so if I saw the magazine I'd be interested by that cover and I'm sure that's what they thought of when they made it.

[mgint]

got them plenty of publicity but not respect

[ro901]

What is really disgusting to me is how easily people are swayed by outward appearances. I mean, if you just shaved the kid's hair off so he looked like a skin-head, what a different impression his appearance would make on public interest.

[coreyw87]

  Yea whats up with that?  I know that Rolling Stone magazine has always kind of be controversial but I would say that was really in poor taste.  I get that magazine and I guess that one will never come into my house.