Rolling Stone

[ktheodos]

Placing the "Boston Bomber" on the cover of their magazine? really?

[vp44]

Yes really because it is their magazine they can do what they want with it. It may not seem right by most but we do not run or own this Magazine. I never read this magazine so I wont be buying it anyway.

[gaylasue]

I could not believe it when I first heard about it on the news.  Outrageous! 

[djohnson43]

I haven't seen it and this is the first I am hearing about it. But surely they could find something else.

[mjoseph1]

wow, that's pretty shocking, hadn't heard about this

[hvnlydevil]

What's next-Casey Anthony on the cover of Parents magazine? I find it sickening that they would glamorize a terrorist who helped to maim and kill.

[sherryinutah]

I think it's a great idea if Rolling Stone Magazine wants to LOSE SUBSCRIBERS.  I can't speak for everyone but I'll never spend money on that magazine, again.    

[wsnyyankees2009]

What's next-Casey Anthony on the cover of Parents magazine? I find it sickening that they would glamorize a terrorist who helped to maim and kill.

[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?

[tjung10]

Well it looks like Rolling Stone is getting the attention they want! How many people really buy magazines these days?

[dmahoney]

Shame on Rolling Stone

[hvnlydevil]

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.

[lvstephanie]

Wait! That is a picture of the Boston bomber?! I thought it was a young Frank Zappa  (which would have made MUCH more sense on a Rolling Stone cover):

(Source: http://newstalgia.crooksandliars.com/gordonskene/weekend-gallimaufry-frank-zappas-mount#sthash.fvab8PhV.dpbs)

[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.

[hvnlydevil]

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.