Rolling Stone magazine is pure crap!!!

[Sava]

Real conservatism would see "colored only/whites only" as intrusive government. True conservatives recognize the equality of rights to all people.

How is it intrusive government? Doesn't a private business have the right to place such restrictions?

[PLATO]

How is it intrusive government? Doesn't a private business have the right to place such restrictions?

No...it would only be allowed if government specifically stated it could be due to violating the equality of rights to all people. That is why it would be intrusive government.

[Sava]

You don't sound like a conservative.

[regexcellent]

I think he's referring to the fact that you USians have been mislabelling progressives as liberals, whereas most of the world had the sense to just call them progressives and keep liberal to its original meaning.

Progressive is the wrong word because it implies that their policies represent progress.

[Tuberski]

I don't know. I could see an expose on what was going on in the mind of the bomber being interesting and informative to some readers even if others find it distasteful.

I see this magazine issue as an example of the free market at work. If you don't like it then don't buy it.

I didn't say a word about the article, I'm talking about the cover and only the cover. Besides the 40th anniversary of Bruce Lee's death is more newsworthy than glamorizing a murderer.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Stop making me agree with you

Nothing wrong with this cover at all. Why wasn't it an outrage when Time magazine did a similar thing with the Columbine shooters?

Really? Himmm, who said the same thing I'm saying a few month's ago? Who could it be? Any guess?

- President Barack Obama, December 16, 2012.

I think at this time it is appropriate the remember the victims of this tragedy and to keep them & their families in our thoughts and prayers. I can't even imagine how that community has been torn asunder. I can't imagine the pain they are going though.

I also think at some point we need to have a national conversation and not just about guns, but about our culture. Why do we glorify violence in the way we do? Why is it considered so important for us to do so? Why do we tend to seek out violence in movies, television, video games, etc? Why do we treat the mentally ill as we do? What is the role of guns in our society? I think we need to lay everything on the table and ask ourselves these questions and be honest and not defensive as we do so.

God bless all the victims in Newton and God bless all of us as we try to make sense of this horror.

YOU DID DICKWAD!!!!!

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only people who have no common sense think that cover glorifies violence.

Indicating how a normal kid can become "a monster" in the words of the cover is only 'glorification' to a moron.

[Hauldren Collider]

How is it intrusive government? Doesn't a private business have the right to place such restrictions?

A business serving the general public may not discriminate based on race. Private clubs that are invitation only are free to do whatever they want, on the other hand.

[Dinner]

Conservatives (real conservatives) hate intrusive government.

No they don't. They claim they do but the second they have a chance they ALWAYS blow up the government and make it bigger. The reality is they just want it to get bigger in places they want and they've never, ever, ever made it smaller in net terms. Not once.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NYTimes editorial board:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/opinion/judging-rolling-stone-by-its-cover.html

Maybe the hysteria about Rolling Stone’s August issue is heat-wave induced. That’s the only charitable explanation for the stampede of critics who have been accusing Rolling Stone editors of trying to turn Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the man accused of the Boston Marathon bombing, into a rock star merely by putting him on the issue’s cover. (Never mind the word “monster” right there in big type.)

The drumbeat became so feverish that Walgreens, CVS and a few other stores have refused to sell the magazine. The mayor of Boston hyperventilated that it “rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment.”

Stores have a right to refuse to sell products because, say, they are unhealthy, like cigarettes (which Walgreens and CVS, oops, both sell). Consumers have every right to avoid buying a magazine that offends them, like Guns & Ammo or Rolling Stone.

But singling out one magazine issue for shunning is over the top, especially since the photo has already appeared in a lot of prominent places, including the front page of this newspaper, without an outcry. As any seasoned reader should know, magazine covers are not endorsements.

Time magazine, for example, had quite a few covers featuring Adolf Hitler during the war years. Less than a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Time featured a less-than-demonic photo of Osama bin Laden. Charles Manson appeared on Rolling Stone’s cover 40-some years ago for a jailhouse interview that was as chilling as it was revealing. We could go on.

Janet Reitman’s long article describes the way a boy portrayed by friends as “just a normal American kid” could go so wrong. And the headline on the cover, right there in very bold type, reads : “How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster.”

One thing seems certain about the Tsarnaev cover. Thanks to the outcry on social media and the reactions of a few timid merchants, this issue should sell quite well.

[DinoDoc]

I think this shot would have made a better cover than the Glam one they went with:

[Imran Siddiqui]

It doesn't show him as a normal American teen though, which was the intention of the cover photo.

[-Jrabbit]

What Rolling Stone Magazine puts on its cover in trying to sell magazines should be above criticism. This is the free press, and they do legitimate journalism.

Let the market decide, and find something else to whine about.

[regexcellent]

Okay suppose a conservative magazine had a cover on the 20th anniversary of the OKC bombing glorifying Timmy McVeigh as a martyr against expansive federal government, how would you feel?

[Colon™]

You're delirious.