Did Rolling Stone Really Just Do That ?

Good journalism should have no regard whatsoever for what society sees as appropriate or inappropriate. Good job Rolling Stone.

Lets not mention the TIME covers that showed the Unabomber and the Columbine Shooters and Stalin and Bin Laden as real people , even interesting figures, and not villains. Plus the Rolling Stone Charles Manson cover. There are so many more examples but people are just into being outraged about stuff.
 
Last edited:
Just giving these little impressionable kids an idea that they can blow up schools and kill people and look like a villain out of a movie. :smh:
 
swendro88 said:
But let it be GZ on that cover....


/thread ****ting
Click to expand...

excuse me?

why would i care if he was on the cover of a magazine being called a monster?

if he's on the cover and its a story about how awesome a guy he is i'd have a problem

but if the subject is how an overzealous apparently racist man made a terrible decision that ruined 2 lives i'd have no objections

they're both horrible people in my eyes honestly a life is a life and if this dude walked around all jolly for 6 weeks after the bombings like he didnt do anything wrong i'd be up in arms too

but you want to bait me into something else right lol naaah not gonna get it

still dont see anything wrong with putting the face of a guy thats already had his face all over tv and papers on a magazine


I really dont see what either has in common with the other outside of you trying to drum up some ********


but carry on
 
knowledgebones72 said:
Good journalism should have no regard whatsoever for what society sees as appropriate or inappropriate. Good job Rolling Stone.

Lets not mention the TIME covers that showed the Unabomber and the Columbine Shooters and Stalin and Bin Laden as real people , even interesting figures, and not villains. Plus the Rolling Stone Charles Manson cover. There are so many more examples but people are just into being outraged about stuff.
Click to expand...

you can't really compare this to Stalin. it's not some glamour shot of him that can cause people to say, hey maybe if I became a communist dictator I can get on the cover too. And the Charles Manson one doesn't hit like this cover does, and we're not really aware of the public's reaction if there was any outrage to it.

but whatever, even if something exactly similar happened it doesn't mean it's ok to do again. also, i'm not one of those that falls into the, "people are just into being outraged about stuff" category. I see things how I see them, right or wrong. they were in the wrong for this and it's the obvious the intent of it isn't, "good journalism," but it's to stir controversy for publicity and $$. which I'm sure they succeeded in.

im out this thread though.
 
knowledgebones72 said:
Good journalism should have no regard whatsoever for what society sees as appropriate or inappropriate. Good job Rolling Stone.

Lets not mention the TIME covers that showed the Unabomber and the Columbine Shooters and Stalin and Bin Laden as real people , even interesting figures, and not villains. Plus the Rolling Stone Charles Manson cover. There are so many more examples but people are just into being outraged about stuff.
Click to expand...
u need to go back to school and retake journalism 1. good journalism does not take any sides. clearly, rolling stone is taking the psycho's side. stop coming up with excuses for rolling stone and that terrorist. siding with them only makes u look like an ignorant fool. my philosophy professor even agrees with me that they are in the wrong here.
 
LAcrimestopper said:
u need to go back to school and retake journalism 1. good journalism does not take any sides. clearly, rolling stone is taking the psycho's side. stop coming up with excuses for rolling stone and that terrorist. siding with them only makes u look like an ignorant fool. my philosophy professor even agrees with me that they are in the wrong here.
Click to expand...

welp his professor agrees with him thats it lock the thread folks nothing to see here
 
LAcrimestopper said:
knowledgebones72 said:
Good journalism should have no regard whatsoever for what society sees as appropriate or inappropriate. Good job Rolling Stone.


Lets not mention the TIME covers that showed the Unabomber and the Columbine Shooters and Stalin and Bin Laden as real people , even interesting figures, and not villains. Plus the Rolling Stone Charles Manson cover. There are so many more examples but people are just into being outraged about stuff.
Click to expand...

u need to go back to school and retake journalism 1. good journalism does not take any sides. clearly, rolling stone is taking the psycho's side. stop coming up with excuses for rolling stone and that terrorist. siding with them only makes u look like an ignorant fool. my philosophy professor even agrees with me that they are in the wrong here.
Click to expand...

So you read the article? What's your take on it?
 
Last edited:
controversy sells?
eyes.gif
 
RyGuy45 said:
I agree they probably would have been best served not putting his giant mug on the cover but this also is nothing new....Manson was on the cover during his run, OJ, McVeigh, Bin Laden, etc were all on TIME covers. These are news publications and Rolling Stone has pushed the hot button issues more than most. They didn't put "Free this Man." They put "How this man became a monster."
Click to expand...

Time and Rolling Stone are the same now?

Not from what I've read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom