Lionbackers.com

You're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but Rolling Stone has created a lot of controversy and backlash with the cover of its latest magazine.

Rolling Stone invites controversy. I think this goes too far. As someone said, honour the victims. But that wouldn't draw this attention.

I dont read magazines, but I always thought rolling stone was supposed to be about music???

KnowItAll wrote:I dont read magazines, but I always thought rolling stone was supposed to be about music???

Not by a long shot; it was founded out of the 1960s counterculture and it's been that way pretty much from day 1, in varying degrees over the years.

I guess whatever it takes to sell.

sj-roc wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:I dont read magazines, but I always thought rolling stone was supposed to be about music???

Not by a long shot; it was founded out of the 1960s counterculture and it's been that way pretty much from day 1, in varying degrees over the years.

That certainly is a slap in the face to their entire country and espec. victims and their families and friends - many of whom will be scarred for life.

Toppy Vann wrote:That certainly is a slap in the face to their entire country and espec. victims and their families and friends - many of whom will be scarred for life.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/to ... 7484.story

Apparently the magaizine has a history of printing dicey type covers including a Charles Manson cover back in the seventies. Again its a personal issue, if it offends you don't buy a copy. It doesn't offend me and I won't be buying a copy.

In this case, I don't mind it. Rolling Stone is a magazine, a commercial enterprise and like it or not, people are going to be curious about why this young man and his brother did what they did. I don't agree with their actions, they were cowardly and shameful, but a picture of them isn't going to threaten me. His picture has been in the papers, on TV so why not a magazine? I think that the real issue is that "Rolling Stone" has that iconic status and it's cover is something akin to the covers of the Saturday Evening Post. Some consider it a mark of honour to be on the cover. It isn't meant to be some kind of award, it is meant to be reflection of what is current and of interest. That includes both the famous and infamous.

Time magazine had Hitler on its cover in 1939, when he was declared Man of the Year. Same Time cover for Stalin in 1943, also Man of the Year. Cover pictures like these, and Tsarnaev's, do not suggest approval or admiration, but rather newsworthiness.

South Pender wrote:Time magazine had Hitler on its cover in 1939, when he was declared Man of the Year. Same Time cover for Stalin in 1943, also Man of the Year. Cover pictures like these, and Tsarnaev's, do not suggest approval or admiration, but rather newsworthiness.

Despite the fact that Time made it clear that it is NOT an honour to be selected but rather a person, group, idea or object that "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year, the magazine got so much backlash when contemplated they considered selecting Osama bin Laden for 2001. In the end though they chose Rudolph Giuliani to make America happy but in all fairness, I dare say bin Laden caused a lot more influence in 2001 than Giuliani did.

R.I.P. David Henneberry who passed away today at the age of 70.

He's the man in Suburban Boston who found the surviving brother of the Boston Marathon bombers hiding in his boat.