Explosions at Boston Marathon
Out of context: Reply #959
- Started
- Last post
- 981 Responses
- nb0
^ Whoa, whoa. I was joking, in order to make a point:
It is interesting how quickly a general outrage forms over this magazine cover while there is virtually zero outrage over endless television news cycles dedicated to this event.
Clearly, Rolling Stone's intent was to stir up controversy. We can at least hope that their intent was to get people to read the article, which I'm sure they feel is an important issue that needs to be discussed in a rational manner.
But, let's say this is just a ploy to sell magazines. Let's assume for a moment that it's completely tactless, and that even the editors at Rolling Stone are entirely doing it for the money.
If that were true, it would mean simply that they have been brought down to the level of television news. The news broadcasts that you see are not meant to inform you of anything. They'll show images of dying people, images of scared people, interviews with scared and affected bystanders. They'll discuss how this affects all Americans, and remind you that you should be afraid, too. And they'll add dramatic music and graphics. Read that again: THEY ADD IN DRAMATIC MUSIC AND GRAPHICS. They'll tell you to go online and add your comments. They'll brainstorm for the best hashtag to draw in an audience from the internet. And they'll remind you that they will "stay with the story" and give you every gory detail as it develops. "Follow us on Facebook and Twitter" so you don't miss a single moment of the excitement.
The television news is doing it ENTIRELY to attract viewers, to keep people glued to their TV or their computer. It is the number one goal of television news. It is entertainment for a people who are so desensitized of violent images, that they are now only afraid of violence and gore that is real. Even if the actual threat to their personal safety is extremely low. Very few aspects of the story are news. The television fills it's hours with mostly commentary and discussions that are designed to stir up an emotional response and hold your attention.
Sure, Rolling Stone put his image on the cover. Maybe they did it for the wrong reasons, it's hard to know. But it's interesting how the majority reacts with outrage while at the same time ignoring what is happening every single day on their TV.
- News coverage is different than a Rock n' Roll magazine when it comes to reporting.monospaced
- We EXPECT his face on the news, but not on Rolling Stone, y'hear?monospaced
- As a TV subscriber, I can change the channel. As a Rolling Stone subscriber, I'm forced to have his face on the cover.monospaced
- Oh, Rolling Stone has been doing political commentary and reporting on current events since the 1970s..nb
- http://en.wikipedia.…nb
- Also, you can throw away the cover or the whole magazine. You can't argue that you're being forced to look at it.nb
- Yes, of course. But it's NOT the same as TV News, which you're comparing it to!monospaced
- I'm suggesting that if they are doing it for the money, they are no worse than TV news. So why the outrage?nb
- Because people buy Rolling Stone to read about music, NOT the fucking terrorist daily newsmonospaced
- Good write up nbidentity
- Except that Rolling Stone has had political coverage in every single issue since the 70s.nb
- And plenty of Rolling Stone subscribers are interested in the political commentary that it provides.nb