Thursday, July 18, 2013

Controversial Cover (or meh, who cares)?

Sometimes I enter giveaways. Not often these days, but I still do it.  As a consolation prize to some great and wonderful thing I was entering for (who knows what, lol), we received a one-year subscription to Rolling Stone (magazine).  Not to impugn the magazine content, but truth be told I haven't read one of them yet (though others in the house have picked them up).


This week, however, when the magazine arrived in the mail I was a bit shocked. Why is he on there?  I see Willie Nelson, Jay-Z, and Gary Clark, Jr. on the sidebar...why not have one of them grace the cover instead?  This is not a pop star, culture icon, or even a political figure gracing the cover, it's a person who decided to make deplorable and completely unacceptable choices that hurt (and worse) way too many people. I don't think he should be celebrated with a cover photo on Rolling Stone magazine.

Just my two cents.

And then my daughter (14) walked by.  "He's cute," she offhandedly said.
"Do you know who that is?!?!?" I asked her, totally dismayed.
"Oh my gosh, that's him???" She asked, noticing the caption under his picture.
"Well, mom, he's a monster, but he is cute."

I instantly remembered a saying from years ago, beauty is only skin deep. In a millisecond, the phrase took on a whole new meaning for me.

43 comments:

  1. Being from Boston, I am pissed about this. It's a slap in the face and highly offensive. Most stores around here are refusing to sell it - as they should.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Rosey, I'm with you. Rolling Stone is just trying to sell some magazines here at any cost. I will never buy it. Their editor's explanation for posting this cover was complete BS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know what they were thinking - really I don't...............
    I heard it was banned in Boston - and that other cities were following suit
    Dr Hook couldn't get on the cover ( and this monster does? )
    XOXOXO

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, that really was unnecessary for them to put his picture all over this month's cover, but I get it controversy sells and this just truly goes to prove it!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hope everyone and their brother boycotts Rolling Stone's ignorant decision.

    I guess Hitler would have been too passe' a choice for them??

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nothing new about that. Look at all the killers and bad guys who have been immortalized. Just here in the West, Jesse James, the Younger Brothers, the Unibomber (Ted Kazinski.... almost my neighbor, as the crow flies).

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's about selling magazines. We need to just stop talking about these people. They become instant celebrities when they do something so horrendous.

    Actually, i don't even watch the news. I have no idea what's going on, and I didn't even know who this guys was before this post.

    This kind of sensationalism is bad for society at large. If we could only stop talking about it and stop watching it. It puts negative thoughts into the heads of our children and ourselves. We need to focus only on positive things.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yep, all about sales, been that way since the dawn of the news paper. You do something really good, it might end up on page three, you do something horrible and you get on every news station and the cover of every magazine. It sells, all about the money.

    ReplyDelete
  9. make you famous...all you got to do is go kill someone...i personally hope it backfires on them---when we stop glorifying the violence we might stand a chance...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with you Rosey! It is often that we see big pictures of persons who have committed terrible crimes on the front of a magazine, newspaper etc. At times you have to wonder if the crazy idea crossed their minds that it is their way to becoming famous. Very sad indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  11. They are getting a lot of free publicity out of this. Even if it's people talking negatively about it, the bottom line is that the magazine is in the news. People aren't buying magazines the same way that they used to, so any article or cover that creates buzz makes people notice the magazine again. Personally I don't pay attention, I believe that they have the right to do it, whether I agree with it or not. I am a big advocate of free speech, even if I don't agree with the message.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I hate that they glamorize these monsters. I thought the something as your daughter when I saw him. He's a cute kid. Looks like a normal teenage boy. Skin deep...that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think when they put things like this out there like that, it makes it all seem okay to our younger generation

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am really upset about this. Why not put the heroes of that day on there, like the 1st responders or the victims & the families.

    A lot of stores said they will not be selling this. And I hope RS magazine feels it in their pocketbook from this. They should be ashamed of themselves. That's my opinion anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  15. They put Charles Manson's picture on the cover back in the day as well.

    There is something wrong with it, but they have done it before.

    ReplyDelete
  16. They even have a few of Charles Manson's letters in the Rock in Roll Hall of Fame Museum.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wow ... no kidding. Just another media tactic to sell more newspapers.

    ¤´¨)
    ¸.•*´
    (¸¤ Lanaya | xoxo
    Raising-Reagan.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. Beauty Is Only Skin-Deep, but Ugly Goes to the Bone. This ugly is not a physical trait.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's definitely hard to believe that they would put him on the cover...kinda sad that they would :-/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, tell your daughter that I've heard that the Devil / Satan is pretty handsome dude, too! I love what Secondary Roads says above.

    Personally (and I don't like to get opinionated on blogs) but Rolling Stone is OFF BASE on this one. I know they thrive on controversy but this time they have gone too far!

    Now on to lighter stuff:
    THANK YOU Rosey for your nice compliments on my Thrifty Outfit, today!!!! (hug)

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think this is absolutely ridiculous!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think it's horrible that they put his picture on the cover. I agree with the person above me: they've gone too far.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't think he's cute. I think he's a monster and we shouldn't as a society be honoring him on the cover of Rolling Stone. He's a murderer of innocents. He's a fanatic from the middle east. We will be seeing more and more of these incident on American soil. Sandee stepping off her soapbox.

    Have a terrific day. ☺

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think it is awful! He is cute. That is what is so scary about it! They'd never have put an ugly person on the cover. Was the unibomber on there? I don't think so. They are glorifying horror.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It usually takes A LOT to offend me...but I admit, I find this offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I really question what the heck is going on with this cover. Your daughter is right........they used a photo where he is cute. Why not use a photo that shows the real monster he is? Better than that......why put him on the cover at all. How are we supposed to heal from this horrific event if pop culture wants to keep it on our coffee table. If I had a subscription to Rolling Stone, I would be cancelling it. I don't expect this type of cover and article from them. It really is disgusting. As has already been said......I don't offend easily, but this one got me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tasteless and shameless promotion of their magazine. To think of him placing bombs near families and just casually walking away is sickening! I don't appreciate their sympathetic slant justifying his actions either...'poor misunderstood guy who fell through the cracks' bias.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You can say that again. These magazines just want to sell and they like to feature the hottest news they think on the cover. I really find this one a bit too off too!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree I don't understand why they thought that was acceptable to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  30. this just irks me... i saw it all over facebook... think how those subscribers that were personally affected felt when they opened their mailbox?????

    ReplyDelete
  31. From what I understand he is now trying to be presented as "tragic" somehow. Like we are supposed to feel sorry for him. I refuse to accept the history rewrite and shame on Rolling Stone for trying to shove it down our throats. Evil is often good looking. Hasn't anyone learned that yet? I hope the entire country boycotts Rolling Stone forever for this arrogant show of manipulation that is downright hurtful to the entire country and a slap in the face.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I really couldn't believe this when I heard about it. Isn't that magazine about music and musicians?? His story doesn't even fit with the genre of the magazine. Honestly, I think they were just trying to be shocking and sell magazines, as sad as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I would think most people would find this highly offensive and refuse to buy it. I've read where some stores are refusing to sell it and I say good for them!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Wow, that's unbelievable. It confirms how insensitive corporations can be. So sad. If I hadn't seen it here, I probably wouldn't have believed it. Sure hope more stores stop selling it altogether...

    ReplyDelete
  35. I've heard about this controversy. He doesn't deserve to have his mug published, unless it's on a roll of toilet paper.

    http://joycelansky.blogspot.com/2013/07/theme-thursday-heat.html

    ReplyDelete
  36. I have a free subscription, but it hasn't come yet. I will be cancelling so fast it will make his head spin! How sick are they that they would put him on the cover to make a buck!

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think it is wrong. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It was a case of very bad decision-making on the part of the magazine. That terrorist is not a rock star, and for him to be depicted in a way that makes anyone think he is "cute" is deplorable.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree, definitely not someone who should be on the cover of Rolling Stone. They have had so many great icons on there. What a way to tarnish that by putting him on there.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Rosey, I agree completely with your daughter. He is cute. I hate that they styled this picture like he was a rock star. Why put him on the cover looking like this? I find it completely offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Wow! Yes that is VERY wrong. Who let that cover slip through the cracks. I wonder if there will be an apology in the next issue.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Our local news put a link up of controversial mag. covers of the past. Kind of crazy, but it is nothing new: http://www.ketv.com/news/entertainment/-/9674216/21013946/-/yk2qvpz/-/index.html?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=ketv+newswatch+7

    ReplyDelete
  43. I don't condone RS for putting this monster on the front cover but it is their free right and will to do so. I'm not quite sure why his face graced the cover, considering RS is a musical entertainment magazine so the only explanation I can come up with is that they wanted the controversy. I think the media, in general, needs to focus more on the good and positive of people rather than glamorize the horrible acts done by horrible people.

    ReplyDelete

Your comment is awaiting moderation. Thank you for your visit!