Rolling Stone being pilloried in the news

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Maybe. But RS has already put a semi "Mea culpa" on their web site accompanying the article which seems to side-step the issue of the "glam" photo.

RS has done some excellent journalistic work over the years, but they've also had a history of pursuing magazine covers that elicit a "reaction" from their readers. I guess they shouldn't be too surprised when they get a reaction from some that is negative.

What magazine doesn't try to elicit a reaction from their readers with provocative cover photos?

Isn't that the whole point of a cover photo, to attract attention?

Come on, now.

Dave

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What magazine doesn't try to elicit a reaction from their readers with provocative cover photos?

Isn't that the whole point of a cover photo, to attract attention?

Come on, now.

Dave

"Tell it like it is".

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What magazine doesn't try to elicit a reaction from their readers with provocative cover photos?

Isn't that the whole point of a cover photo, to attract attention?

Come on, now.

Dave

"Tell it like it is".

(Apologies to Aaron Neville)

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What magazine doesn't try to elicit a reaction from their readers with provocative cover photos?
Dave

Somehow I am not understanding the outrage.

Isn't there a story in the paper about the Boston bombing?

Isn't this a pic of one of the bombers?

Is this not standard?

When I see a picture of someone on the cover of a paper, to me, it means there is a story related to that picture inside. Am I missing something?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

the "glam" photo.

So if they had a photo of the same guy with his eyed crossed it would be OK?

[Oerets]

I see this like most controversies in the media. Distractions from the real problems facing us. Ones to complex to understand, explain in three minute segments or to hard to face and fix.



Barney

[Dondilion]

It a carry over for the demise of their darling General McChrystal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

So if they had a photo of the same guy with his eyed crossed it would be OK?

I would have preferred a picture of him doing the perp walk in an orange jump suit, but that may poison the jury pool.

But it's their magazine, and I respect their right to do with it as they please.

Chas

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

It a carry over for the demise of their darling General McChrystal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal

Yep, you betcha. The wingnuts are still smarting over RS exposing him and trashing his career.

[icenine]

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/bomb...one-6C10671779


looks like the fuss has died down.