165
On the cover of the Rolling Stone : Swingers Discussion 225201
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsOn the cover of the Rolling Stone
TOPIC: On the cover of the Rolling Stone
Created by: Lucky2haveU
Original Starting post for this thread:
Terrorists, Communists, and Leftist Make the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine But Not Dr. Hook. WTF!!!!!

GoTo Page: 1 2
 1 to 10 of 14   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Rolling Stone Magazine

Nothing rolling about it. Haven't bought it but have read it many times. They continually cover bull shit and they are a liberal centered Rag. They wouldn't be caught dead covering real entertainers. They started out doing it right but fell away when they decided to state opinion on the politics not the politics of the industry where it would serve the entertainers but politics and tragedy. Using the Magazine to promote politicians and terrorists doesn't do anything to correct the corrupt Music industry.

Saint Louis MO
Username hidden
(12440 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"I didn't say they only did entertainment-related things. They also do stuff on pop culture and politics."

I know what you said. What I said was the people who are complaining about RS putting this kid on the cover are people who have never actually read the magazine and thinks it's just some sort of high-end tabloid that covers celebrity/pop-culture/entertainment news. "As usual, most of the "controversy" is being driven by people who know very little about the topic in question."

No, I think the complaints are being led mostly by oversensitive bitches who think that RS is trying to glamorize or glorify this kid. If it were Time doing the story and putting him on their cover, I don't think you get nearly as much public backlash. I think this is a case of public perception more than anything else. The general public doesn't perceive RS as a legitimate news publication and thinks this is just a money making scheme.

T

Danville PA
Username hidden
(3199 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I didn't say they only did entertainment-related things. They also do stuff on pop culture and politics. As usual, most of the "controversy" is being driven by people who know very little about the topic in question.

My sister in law has numerous copies of all of the RS issues with Obama on the cover and cover and entire wall of her living room with them.

Seriously.

Chesapeake VA
Username hidden
(18793 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"People are calling this controversial because RS is not really a news magazine per se, and they think his being on the cover gives him some kind of celebrity status."

Not saying that you believe this, but anyone who thinks that RS doesn't put out very legitimate, non-entertainment related articles, has never looked beyond the cover in the check out aisle at the grocery store.

I've read some absolutely amazing articles in there on some of the more serious topics that come up. In fact, when RS does push out an article on a legitimate news story, I'd put it up against nearly anything put out there by the more established news rags. Sometimes they really knock it out of the park.

T

Danville PA
Username hidden
(3199 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Agree T, it is really pitiful how a few believe they can mold the news for the rest of us. And it is a shame that some people fall for it.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19237 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
People are calling this controversial because RS is not really a news magazine per se, and they think his being on the cover gives him some kind of celebrity status.

Well, truth is anyone notorious has "celebrity" status. Jeffrey Dahmer and Timothy McVeigh are household names. They aren't celebrities in the sense that we want them to be, but they are "interesting" people in the sense that people want to peer inside their heads and hearts, learn about who they are, what motivates them, and what led to this.

The Boston Bombing suspects are interesting people, like it or not. So, to make him a "cover guy" for Rolling Stone for a story about him is perfectly fine in my mind.

Chesapeake VA
Username hidden
(18793 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1939 for fuck's sake.

Al Capone was the cover story for Time sometime in 1930, as was Stalin.

Bin Laden's face has been on the cover of nearly every magazine in the country at one point or another between 9/11 and his death.

OJ Simpson was on the cover of Time and Newsweek and probably a dozen others after he (allegedly) killed his ex-wife.

The public outcry over this is beyond ridiculous. Man up, 'Murica. Quit being pussies.

T

Danville PA
Username hidden
(3199 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I have no problem with them putting him on the cover. He is news, and they report the news as well as entertainment. His picture on a magazine is not going to harm anyone. Forcing the magazine to bend to public pressure will harm us.

I have not read the article, yet. But as I understand it they question how someone who some saw as a normal person could be such a monster. It is a legitimate question.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19237 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Even Motor Trend.

Chesapeake VA
Username hidden
(18793 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Tbr:

Bin laden has graced the cover of almost every printed journalistic program that exist.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7251 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2
 1 to 10 of 14   End
TOPIC: On the cover of the Rolling Stone