(re: Rolling Stone bans) Is there no limit to our national outrage-addiction?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2013, 05:11 PM - Edit history (4)

The Rolling Stone has a sweet/sexy old photograph of the surviving Boston Marathon bomber illustrating a story that asks, explicitly, how such a seemingly cool guy became a monster. That is what the article is about... the contrast... the question we all ask ourselves how somebody who seems benign can become a monster.

If the hook of the article is "How did this kid become a monster?" and you use a mugshot or a touched up photo of the kid with horns and pointed teeth then it wouldn't pose much of a paradox. There is an irony. The picture looks like a guy you would expect to see on Rolling Stone, not like our cliche picture of an Islamic terrorist.

Since the Rolling Stone has a youth readership (or at least likes to think they do) and a lot of young people are probably puzzled as to why people who seemed like nice enough kids sometimes shoot up their high school or college or blow people up, it seems a story of plausible interest to that cohort.

But some people really like attention, and find personal meaning only in perpetual outrage, and thus we have CVS, and Walgreens, and Rite-Aid, and who knows who else one hour from now. responding to some ginned-up outcry by refusing to sell this magazine because it glorifies a murderer... presumably by talking about how he "became a Monster."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/cvs-tedeschi-rolling-stone_n_3611805.html

This is not "win a date with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev," or, "12 bedroom tips that will drive Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wild," or, "Who is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wearing?"

The cover says (for anyone browsing without pictures), The Bomber: How a poular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster.

[tblue]

1. Oh that's just great.

They gonna sexy up GZ next?

[Whisp]

7. Is that photo 'sexied up?'

Looks like a regular photograph to me, kinda grainy, not p shopped by what I can tell.

Are we to become hysterical because the kid is not ugly?

[Rex]

2. So, even if you put on the front cover "Became a Monster"

that STILL is not good enough for the US purity police? I guess the terrorists DID win on 9/11. Sigh.

[cthulu2016]

4. I thought it was effective. At a glance you ask who this

dreamy teen-idol dude on Rolling Stone is, and then you realize who it is, and go, "Man... how does that happen?"

[Rex]

8. Same here, that was my first impression too...is it wrong?

That is what I said, 'how did this guy go from normal American teen, to bomb making monster?' I thought the whole idea is to make the reader think.

[frylock]

40. thinking is frowned upon anymore..

just watch American Idle, eat, and reproduce.

[Rex]

41. Here comes Honey Boo Boo!

Isn't she cute when she farts for the viewing audience!

You and I both know, "Ouch, my balls!" is only a few short years away from real production.

[frylock]

42. go AWAY!

i'm 'batin'!

[Rex]

47. LOL!

[karynnj]

89. True, but if Lawernce O'Odonnell was accurate the article fails to

discover any reasons.

[txwhitedove]

43. Agree, my take on the picture too. Plus, if the world can discuss Trayvon's hoodie and whether

or not it made him look like a "punk" (rididulous!) when he was only guilty of walking home, then why can't we discuss the seemingly innocent appearance of Dzhokhar who actually took part in a horrific bombing?????

How does any of this crazy shit happen?

[WCGreen]

151. Which basically says anyone can turn into a monster...

Even the cute guys...

[karynnj]

88. Magazine stands have opted to not to stock certain issues

of magazines for decades - long before 911 if they thought they would offend customers. There are many times I disagreed, but my right is just to buy it elsewhere - along with anything else that I buy.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. I remember that some refused to sell Rolling Stone when Elton John came out.

So there is that precedent.

[BeyondGeography]

3. The subhead is what sucks

It says, "Victim, victim, victim." The passive language and the come-hither image is not redeemed by "became a monster." There would have been blood on the floor if I were in that cover meeting.

[X_Digger]

23. Yeah, that passive voice does come off a bit tone deaf. (pun intended) n/t

[Logical]

57. Lol, what does "blood on the floor" mean? Dramatic much? n-t

[BeyondGeography]

63. Yeah, well, I hate what they did here

And if you have enough mental energy, watch the O'Donnell clip below to see why the whole enterprise should have been a non-starter.

[Logical]

98. Well, I do not think O'Donnell is always right. n-t

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. There's exactly one reason that fucker is on the cover

He looks hip. If he had a crew cut and no facial hair, there'd be nothing doing.

[MADem]

53. If he had pimples, bad teeth and crossed eyes...he wouldn't even make the inside pages. nt

[progressoid]

96. Like Charles Manson

[MADem]

121. Gee, he's not in a reposed, relaxed, softly lit, "staring directly into the camera, dreamy-eyed"

pose--like a rock star on top of the world. He looks like a crazed messiah.

And that cover caught shit, too.

[quinnox]

6. Jesus, there is nothing wrong with that cover

Maybe fundie Christian types are outraged about it but these people shouldn't be paid attention to.

It says right there in big bold letters "The Bomber" and then explains what the article will be about (which sounds very interesting by the way)

[get the red out]

10. I agree

It seems to be doing anything but glorifying him.

[gvstn]

16. It's online now.

I haven't read it due to my shortened attention span but will get to it tonight.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717

I am okay with the cover. His face is recognizable and informs the casual browser that the magazine will have an article about him in it. Pretty much what a magazine cover should do.

[quinnox]

19. cool thanks, bookmarking to read later

[temmer]

49. The article doesn't mention Tamerlan's connection to the FBI

His mother says he was observed by the FBI the whole time.

She also admits that he was in contact with Islamistic circles.

Tamerlan himself told his friend Brendan Mess (the murdered drug dealer) in 2011 that he was on the FBI terror watch list.

This looks like he was kind of a FBI agent to infiltrate Islamistic groups.

The article, who purports to be an in-depth analysis, fails to mention this FBI context.

Thanks for posting, btw.

[gvstn]

71. Interesting take.

You are right it definitely was not an in depth article and it did downplay the FBI involvement. I was disappointed in the article for it revealed little new and did nothing to actually connect the dots.

I was defending the cover but I don't think this article merits much of a defense.

[NoOneMan]

9. As far as its question, my thought is: we aint seen nothing yet

I hope I'm wrong, but I think we are running into the unknown with a social experiment consisting of raising children in a virtual world that leads to isolation and detachment from reality and humanity. We are constantly replacing the natural human experience with new experiences that the human animal did not evolve with, and thereby, impacting its mental development in some pretty nefarious wars to breed an entire generation of sociopaths (where human feelings aren't considered as important or real, beyond their advertised online "status&quot . So now we have mass shooters and mass bombers and mass idiots who all see themselves as "characters" of this new online consciousness that we all share. The floodgates of this experiment may begin to open up, and there couldn't be a worse time because we have some real world problems of epic proportions

But as for the Radical Islam angle...hell, how do we know these boys just didn't need a cause to justify their carnage, much like the crazy white guy and his girlfriend in Canada who plotted the Canada Day bombings? Maybe these people just want to blow some people up, and think its as good of a reason as any other?

[Pholus]

11. Yup. I kinda feel like someone realized along that way that enough outrage...

nullifies it as a driver for social change.

[datasuspect]

12. people are dead set to see themselves as victims of EVERYTHING

fucking dumb, stupid motherfuckers.

[GeorgeGist]

13. The outrage doesn't seem ...

[cthulu2016]

14. well done

[MicaelS]

15. The subtext is that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a victim.

It's not his fault he and his brother set off those bombs. It's someone elses' fault.

[graywarrior]

17. Well, there's outrage and then there's.....

[IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[MADem]

52. Works for me.

I find the mocking by some hipster-types of the entirely understandable, visceral feelings of upset from those of us in NE a bit off putting. It's like they think it's "cool" to be "counterculture" and that demands that they be unfeeling as well.

They don't realize that the publisher of that "hip" Rolling Stone magazine is also the publisher of that "unhip" US WEEKLY. He's all about the Benjamins--he's one of those "corporate asshole one percenters" that everyone loves to rail about. And the people who run out and buy the magazine so they have the "forbidden" cover will think they're cool while they line a corporatist's pocket.

This was nothing more than a cheesy Free Publicity Blitz and they fell for it. Not so smart.

Put this "kid" on the cover, why don't they? Is he not "dreamy" enough to sell magazines?

?6

[graywarrior]

70. Thanks for that. I just read that they wanted to depict a sheep in wolf's clothing effect.

It's upsetting hearing from people outside the state that we're over reacting here in MA. I guess you have to come from here to get why.

[MADem]

150. They pissed off a statie big time.

He might get in trouble for releasing these pics, but I can understand his frustration.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/

[graywarrior]

152. They put him on a one day leave

[KamaAina]

18. Most of the outrage is quite genuine and is centered in New England

CVS, while it is a nationwide chain, is headquartered in Woonsocket, RI. Walgreens and Rite Aid are presumably following its lead. Other outlets such as Tedeschi's are local to New England, where the bombings still touch a raw nerve in a way they do not in the rest of the country, presumably including Rolling Stone's editorial offices in NYC.

[Nye Bevan]

38. But there was no outrage when the same photo was on the front page of the New York Times?

Did CVS in New England ban that newspaper too?

[cthulu2016]

48. Mid-July is a much slower news period

An outraged press release from whomever today? That's big news.

Even only a few days ago, though, during the Zimmerman trial, this would not have been an "outrage" or even a story.

And Rolling Stone is a far better target than the NYT. Outrage is best manufactured against something about which the outraged know little.

Many of the "outraged" probably think Rolling Stone is like Tiger Beat. And many of the rest identify it as a left-leaning publication.

(These serious answers to a largely rhetorical post are not meant to imply that I think you are unaware of them. Just stating the obvious so that it shall have been stated.)

[Bluenorthwest]

103. I've been asking the same thing and getting the same refusal to respond

instead, the 'outraged' post animations and emoticons to show how sincere their offense really is....no thoughts, just animations and emoticons.

[whatchamacallit]

20. The American people lost their minds and their balls after 9/11

And as long as they accept the war on terror as presented, they're never getting them back.

[onenote]

21. I've discussed this with friends from Boston who are sincerely upset, but I don't see it myself

As others have pointed out, the picture fits with the narrative of the story: how did this nice looking fella that most people never suspected of being a killer turn into a monster?

What further perplexes me is that I don't recall this level of outrage being aimed at newspapers, both in and outside of Boston, that ran front page photographs of the bombing aftermath that were gory and gruesome and undoubtedly caused much anguish among some the families that viewed them.

And then there is this front page from a Boston paper -- not the same picture, but not exactly a picture that one looks at and says "monster":

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I don't see how a headline that describes someone as "Fell into Radical Islam and became a Monster"

as glorifying terrorism. From the beginning I myself was puzzled by this story. This young man was hanging out with his friends and talking about rap music and girls - not months before the bombing - but a couple days before the bombing. Numerous people that knew him used words like, "nice", "sweet" and a "really wonderful kid" - to describe him. That aspect of the story IS mind boggling. I think Rolling Stone is making an honest attempt to try to make sense of a story that confounds a lot of people.

[deutsey]

135. I agree, but I think we've become an image-driven culture

It's where most people's attention is focused, not on the written word.

Just my 2 cents as an aging English major.

[geek tragedy]

24. I dunno, if someone did a soft porn cover of bin laden on a magazine

and sold it in New York, I probably would have been offended when I saw it on every newstand.

[whatchamacallit]

28. Soft porn cover?

WTF are you babbling about?

[geek tragedy]

29. Glamourous, dreamy shot of him. nt

[whatchamacallit]

31. So let me get this straight...

They didn't commission this photo, it already existed and has been used in multiple news publications. Is it your (bizarre) contention that they should have used the shittiest, scariest picture they could dig up?

[geek tragedy]

32. I don't really care. I'm just saying that for people who were traumatized by this guy's actions,

they might not appreciate seeing the Teenage Dreamboat picture splashed prominently on every newstand they walk by to the point they can't avoid it.

[whatchamacallit]

33. Idiotic.

That's what he looks like. Know when to quit.

[geek tragedy]

34. I'm trying to be empathetic for people who got traumatized by this.

As I said, personally makes no difference to me.

[whatchamacallit]

35. Don't care, but just had to yap something dumb?

What if there are no scary pictures of him, then what?

[geek tragedy]

36. You may think that crude belligerence makes you witty.

That would be an error.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Same photo was the NY Times Page One above the fold on May 5, 2013

The next day, did Larry O'Donnell have a hissy fit? Did DU explode about it?
The month before the Boston Globe had a video enhanced story with many glowing quotes and similar images of the killer. Again, there was no reaction from Larry or other Bostonians. Why?
"He added that Dzhokhar went to mosque sometimes but he was “never an extremist.
“Dzhokhar is a sweet boy, innocent. He was always smiling, friendly and happy,” Zaur Tsarnaev said. “I don’t know how he is involved in this.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/19/relatives-marathon-bombing-suspects-worried-that-older-brother-was-corrupting-sweet-younger-sibling/UCYHkiP9nfsjAtMjJPWJJL/story.html

[geek tragedy]

78. As someone who's not offended, I really can't answer. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

94. That's a convenient change of mounts. You called the photo 'soft porn' upthread.

But it is only 'soft porn' in RS, not in the NY Times or the Boston Globe? Is that it?

[geek tragedy]

97. Soft porn doesn't offend me. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

104. Here is your quote that started this subtread:

" I dunno, if someone did a soft porn cover of bin laden on a magazine and sold it in New York, I probably would have been offended when I saw it on every newstand."

So your original statement said this is a 'soft porn' shot and that you probably would be offended by a similar photo. Now you say otherwise. Folks can read.

[geek tragedy]

105. In a different context, yes.

Just like someone's mother being insulted doesn't typically bother me, unless it's mine.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. Cake and Eat It Too arguments are the defining tactic of those in the wrong...

You chimed in saying it would offend you, posted by your own free will that it would, then you say it does not when asked to explain your 'reasoning'.
'I'd have been offended, but if you ask me why I will say I would not have been offended.'
Circular logic indicates an affected and insincere stance.

[geek tragedy]

110. Oy. I said it would if it were bin Laden. Subjunctive mood.

In this case it's not, so I can only offer a superficial attempt at empathy. My ability to place myself in someone else's shoes is limited.

I can't speak to particulars about that photo appearing in this magazine or that newspaper previously, because this particular photo is not in fact bothering me.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. Cake. Also eat the cake. Have it, eat it. Cake.

Say this, say that. Say anything. Cake and eat it too.

[geek tragedy]

117. Zzz. You must be really bored to pick a fight over this. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

139. A free and open press matters to me. This bothers you. So you pick the fight.

Sorry, but that's what it is. Serious journalism is under attack, yet again. You don't like the message so you go after the messengers.

[geek tragedy]

140. A rather grandiose explanation for a petty blog spat. nt

[ejpoeta]

80. a lot of folks are saying it's because it's rolling stone. had it been a 'news' magazine

then it would not have been an issue. if it had been on 'time' or something. But rolling stone has done news stories in the past. This was the cover article, so of course you would have a picture of him. And since the article is about how he went from normal kid to bomber, it would also make sense to use a picture of him as a normal kid. I understand people are upset, but it seems more of a knee jerk reaction than actually thinking about it before responding.

[MADem]

106. It is generally regarded as an HONOR to be pictured on that magazine.

Listen to the words:

Yes, they have "strayed" on occasion--like with Manson--and they got shit for that, too.

....Defenders have pointed out that Rolling Stone put Charles Manson on its cover in 1970, but anyone who doesn't think the Manson family was glorified in popular culture hasn't been paying attention. In the decades since, Rolling Stone has opted to stick almost exclusively with celebrity covers, relegating its often amazing, in-depth journalism inside. For example, the issue featuring the article that led to the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal featured Lady Gaga on its cover in a thong (with twin machine guns). That's the context within which this image is received by the reader.

While the disarming image of Tsarnaev may fit the narrative of "normal teen to terrorist" — "By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations," Slate argues in a Slate-y defense — it's also, knowingly or not, a nod to the well-publicized #FreeJahar cult, which emphasizes his boyish good looks and regular-dude interests.

Both Slate and Politico have pointed to magazines like Time depicting Hitler, bin Laden, and the Columbine killers on their covers, but in all of those cases the context is different: As with the New York Times, which ran the same photo of Tsarnaev months earlier, we're used to seeing news images in those spaces. Rolling Stone covers are, as a rule, sexy, and usually from an exclusive photo shoot meant to make the subject look as desirable as possible. There's no denying that its a beautiful, striking image, but that's the problem — it could easily be a classic shot of Jim Morrison or Bob Dylan. Would a less glamorous photo have gotten the same treatment?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/rolling-stone-boston-bombing-cover-backlash.html

[Bluenorthwest]

115. That's absurd. Manson, Nixon, Police with Batons beating protesters

and many other negative images have been on that cover. If folks don't know that, that's on them.
http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/rolling-stone

[MADem]

124. Look who you're naming--Manson, Nixon, Police With Batons--you're going back over a generation.

Sorry, your excuses and arguments don't fly. The paradigm has been "gonna buy five copies for my mother"--rock stars, looking their best, with RARE exception in recent years--as your very link demonstrates. See, you need to start HERE http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/rolling-stone/17 and work backwards--not cite covers from four decades ago like they are meaningful to the discussions of today.

Go on then, though--go buy the magazine, or buy US WEEKLY, and exercise your "right to be hip." Either way, you line the owner's pockets. You got played just the way he wanted you to get played. You contribute to his greed machine, where money is made quite gratuitously from the suffering of others.

You're one of the counterculture kewl kids if you plunk down your money for that shit. I'd rather see one of the people that little shithead murdered on the cover.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. Pot, Meet Kettle!

GAC

[Gravitycollapse]

149. That, to you, is a glamorous, dreamy shot?

It's a poorly executed selfie.

[X_Digger]

25. Meh, I don't get the outrage, either.

That being said, it's not like he tripped over a crack in the sidewalk and fell into being a terrorist.

I haven't read the article yet (linked above) but if that's the angle they're pushing? Meh.

[whatchamacallit]

26. Too pretty to be a terrorist

America demands he look like this

[bunnies]

27. Wasnt that same pic on the front page of the Times?

Surprised it hasnt been on any teen magazines considering the fan club he has. I expected fold-out posters of the little shit by now.

edit: thought so:

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

30. Getting outraged at people that are outraged is outrageous. nt

[Nye Bevan]

37. So when an Islamic terrorist is somehow deemed to be "too good-looking",

news articles about him should avoid using his photograph? Edit the photograph to make him look less attractive? Use the app store "Ugly Booth" app?

Someone seems to be inventing a new rule here and I'm trying to make sure that I understand it.

[thucythucy]

133. Maybe not putting him on the cover at all?

Let's be clear, I'm not advocating censorship, and generally enjoy Rolling Stone (have a subscription) and think Matt Taibbi's work on banksters and RS's other investigative work is great stuff, stories that very definitely need to be told. And for all I know, this article may be just as good (haven't checked my mail yet).

BUT, I do have a problem with how we tend to turn people who commit the most awful atrocities into instant celebrities, "rock stars," if you will. We live in a culture in which celebrity and fame are hugely important commodities, and some people commit the crimes they do largely because they want to be famous, by any means necessary. I'm thinking, for instance, of the asshole who shot John Lennon (whose name I refuse to type). Putting this alleged bomber on the cover of a major magazine which is primarily seen as a purveyor of pop culture seems to be a part of that trend.

And BTW, since there hasn't yet been a trial or conviction, and last I heard this guy is pleading "not guilty," shouldn't any headline or magazine cover with the word "BOMBER" so prominently featured also feature the word "alleged"?

Isn't it odd that the civil libertarians amongst us haven't made that point, as yet?

[warrprayer]

39. I'm OUTRAGED!

OUTRAGED, I tell you!

[Warren DeMontague]

46. I'm outraged that you posted a cover by such a sucky band.

the original is better.

[lunasun]

84. Agree -totally lame and pretty Poison boys= nothing to do with what the song is about IMO

sing it one eyed doctor !

[tazkcmo]

134. I agree, but

I am even MORE outraged than you.

[msanthrope]

141. I'm outraged you dissed Dr. Hook with an 80"s hair band. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

44. he became a monster by choice.

so, fuck him.

But beyond that, the magazine cover doesn't bother me.

[Apophis]

45. It's all fauxrage.

It's not about the content of the article. It's only about the cover.

[discopants]

50. It's the content too.

Please watch Lawrence O'Donnell's response:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/52504873

[MADem]

54. +1 nt

[BeyondGeography]

55. Thanks for the link...total embarrassment for Rolling Stone

The cover sets up a lame victim premise, and the article doesn't even begin to deliver a meaningful explanation. Which says of course this is all about sensationalism and selling magazines. The retailers who are boycotting are right not to play along.

[MADem]

100. The hip owner of Rolling Stone is also the UNHIP owner of US WEEKLY.

The story, as Larry O'Donnell noted, that accompanies the article is rather sloppy shit and you will not learn anything new. I can only conclude that this was a "money" move--as in, Rolling Stone is less relevant in the digital age, and this is how they intend to create more brand recognition amongst the youth demographic that they claim is a big chunk of their market share.

I don't know any "kids" who read Rolling Stone. They have a different paradigm for getting their news content. That magazine, IMO, is aimed at people over thirty, and the average age of their readers, I would guess, is closer to seventy than seventeen. Mick Jagger's peers like that shit, not young kids who don't follow "old folk's" music--look closely at the cover, were they putting a musician on the cover, like they should have, who would it have been? Upper left corner--Willy Nelson. Great artist, absolutely, but no spring chicken.

This was a carefully calculated, adroitly manufactured offense, designed to hurt the feelings of people from the Bay State, so that they would react as they've done, and earn the magazine more publicity. But this is not about journalism--it's about lining the pockets of the owner. Anyone who "buys in" to that "counterculture" bullshit vibe they're trying to shop is being taken for a ride by a corporatist publisher who crafted a clever "free" publicity campaign.

I'd like to see that basstid donate all the proceeds from the sale of that deplorable issue to the One Fund. I will not hold my breath.

[BeyondGeography]

101. Yes, the publisher should pose in front of his own Mission Accomplished banner

Summertime is the worst time of the year for ad/newsstand sales. Problem fully addressed across RS' multiple platforms. Think of all the extra clicks on the website alone...

[MADem]

102. +1,000 nt

[Nye Bevan]

56. "Rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment"?

By calling him a "monster" on the cover of the magazine?

Ridiculous.

[BeyondGeography]

64. Watch the clip...the article is mostly filled with glowing references

It does nothing to deliver on the "how" or "why" side of the story. Don't be a total dupe.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. The Boston Globe, April 19

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/19/relatives-marathon-bombing-suspects-worried-that-older-brother-was-corrupting-sweet-younger-sibling/UCYHkiP9nfsjAtMjJPWJJL/story.html

Why this article filled with video clips and 'he was an angel' quotes was fine with Larry and the Rolling Stone so deeply offensive to him is thus far inexplicable and seems really, really hypocritical.

[BeyondGeography]

87. Four days after the attack...were they trying to sell papers?

That wasn't junk food; just basic reporting that made Rolling Stones' rewrite that much easier, didn't it? This provocative RS cover and the accompanying substance-free article is about nothing more than goosing sales. The whole premise for the article obviously started and ended with the cover sell, and the proof (since you apparently need it) is they pulled their reporter from Lawrence's show. You're looking for hypocrisy in exactly the wrong place.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

51. I think the cover and story is much ado about nothing....

....however, I respect the right of the stores in this case to avoid the blowback and not carry the magazine. I don't think any of them are doing it because they want publicity or back patting for it.

[Logical]

58. More fake outrage. Annoying. n-t

[reformist2]

59. It's fauxrage. If Nat'l Review had put him on their cover, these same people would be silent.

[thucythucy]

123. Really? You think Lawrence O'Donnell and the various victims

of the attack who say they're bothered by this would have no problem if the National Review ran the same thing?

Honestly?

Since when did Lawrence O'Donnell became a fan of National Review?

[Bluenorthwest]

126. Same photo was the NY Times Page One above the fold on May 5, 2013

Larry was silent, he did not deliver his diatribe toward them. Boston Globe did a very similar story filled with folks lauding the killer, with photos and videos and Larry had no qualms then either.
So maybe not the National Review, but he let other publications slide on the exact same things, more than once. Just how it is.

[thucythucy]

129. Point taken.

You mentioned National Review, which is a conservative publication, and I thought you were making some sort of comment on O'Donnell's politics.

My impression though was that when the Globe and Times ran with much the same information, months ago, it was topical, and the information (and photo) hadn't yet been made widely available. Rolling Stone--according to O'Donnell anyway--is mostly rehashing the same material.

I'll know soon enough: I have a subscription to RS and should get my copy today or tomorrow.

Anyway, I posted further down some thoughts about how as a culture we seem addicted to turning the alleged perpetrators of the most heinous crimes into instant celebrities. Celebrity is a powerful drug (much more so, I think, that any "outrage addiction&quot and perhaps we should put some thought into how we provide assorted assholes with their instant celebrity fix, for killing and mutilating people pretty much at random.

Just a thought, anyway.

[Orrex]

60. What we really need is people to howl in outrage about other people's outrage

Well done.

Well done.

[Sunlei]

61. excellent article. It's easy for a terrorist to grow at home. lota Mutts lookin' for Jeffs to follow

[Puzzledtraveller]

62. No, being pissed actually feels good

http://angermentor.com/secrets-of-anger-addiction-and-why-rage-feels-real-damn-good

[JCMach1]

65. People don't read any more obviously...

sigh...

A quick read of the cover should turn-off the outrage meter.

[Octafish]

66. Hate the Free Press...burn the rag and all dangerous books and ideas...

Remind anyone of some place, some time?

[Skwmom]

67. Would people be so outraged if the picture had been of a "menacing" black teenager?

Of course not.

Maybe this will help people realize that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover.

[Whisp]

68. Lawrence O'Donnel spoke about this last night.

He was very angry at the RS cover. He had the author slated to appear on his show but she (?) cancelled out at last minute.

He refused to show the cover and went into why he was angered by it.

I didn't find the cover offensive but according to O'Donnell the actual piece was a poor bit of writing which almost elevated the guy instead of bring anything new into the conversation of why he became this monster.

So I mostly agree with Lawrence, if the piece was so poorly written with nothing to contribute other than his friends thought he was cool, then it was a fail.

I'm not sure that is why most people are offended tho - I think it's because he is on the cover and doesn't 'look' like a monster.

[gvstn]

69. I didn't see the show

But I will agree with his evaluation of the article.

The first half was quotes/observations from friends/teachers about what a sweet kid he was and so handsome. It really sounded like it was written by a teenage girl with a crush. (The article is long by today's standards but try to read at least half of the first page to get the gist.)

The second half just detailed what we already knew that the older brother got more and more into radical Islam and he had a lot of sway over his younger brother when they were together. Nothing really new and the "monster" was just a quote from his old coach that she pulled out and for drama but never really went into in any depth.

It was a poor article especially for RS and the "cover" controversy. Not enough meat to the article for them to defend the cover. IMO

[Myrina]

82. O'Donnell was being a self-righteous pissed off Southie.

He was NOT being a journalist. He needs to give disclaimers when he stops being "professional" and starts being "personal".

Or better yet, he should get a different job.

[Bluenorthwest]

113. Larry's 'showbiz' work got some harsh reviews from RS so he's wicked bittah

nt

[gvstn]

73. Buzzfeed has the 15 revelations found in hte article

This is just for those who don't want to read the article but want to get the gist. As you can see the revelations are pretty mundane. This was not hard reporting.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/15-revelations-from-rolling-stone-article-on-boston-bomber-d

[Bluenorthwest]

75. How does it compare with this one from Boston Globe in April?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/19/relatives-marathon-bombing-suspects-worried-that-older-brother-was-corrupting-sweet-younger-sibling/UCYHkiP9nfsjAtMjJPWJJL/story.html

[gvstn]

86. The Globe article is better written for a news story.

It gives out facts in a more succinct way. It, however is concentrating on both brothers rather than just the younger one.

My problem with the RS article is that it offered essentially nothing new but just parroted back old facts/remembrances and did so in a very sympathetic way towards Dzhokhar. If the Globe could come up with essentially the same story within 4 days from the bombing what the heck was the RS reporter researching for 2-3 months? Really, the tone of the article is too much like a Tumblr fan page cobbled together from tidbits she found on the internet despite having done actual interviews with his friends. She apparently had no direct access to any family. I thought it might be more in depth and well thought out.

[Bluenorthwest]

107. So you at least admit that Boston Globe has done 'essetially the same story'

and that did not upset you, but the RS piece does. Same story. Got it. You wished to be offended at one, but not at the other 'cause the other is 'Boston Local'.
Your characterization of the RS piece includes ZERO quotes with which you take issue. Is this because you can not quote what bothers you because it is not in the article or because it is also in the Boston Globe and NYT?

[gvstn]

111. Admit???

I'm just giving you my impression of the stories. I'm not seeking outrage. I was hoping for a story that could inform on the steps in his change from a nice kid to a "monster". All I saw was a story of a nice kid whose family was having a hard time financially and whose brother was playing the role of father after his real father went back to his home country. None of his friends really articulated anything new.

This description of Dzhokahar borders on fandom in my opinion. Which people? Or was it everyone in Cambridge?

People in Cambridge thought of 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – "Jahar" to his friends – as a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor, soulful brown eyes and the kind of shy, laid-back manner that "made him that dude you could always just vibe with," one friend says. He had been a captain of the Cambridge Rindge and Latin wrestling team for two years and a promising student. He was also "just a normal American kid," as his friends described him, who liked soccer, hip-hop, girls; obsessed over The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones; and smoked a copious amount of weed.

He just embraced the city, the school and the whole culture – he gratefully took advantage of it. And that's what endeared me to him: This was the quintessential kid from the war zone, who made total use of everything we offer so that he could remake his life. And he was gorgeous," he adds.

I'm just saying that this story was a little light on "monster" and a little heavy on soulful and gorgeous.

I've said before the cover is fine with me. A casual browser at the newsstand instantly recognizes the face and knows the magazine contains an article about the bombing--that is what cover pictures are supposed to accomplish. But after reading the actual article I can see where Bostonians might find issue with the flavor of this piece. The fact that the bomber is a fresh-faced teenager is a fact but I think it is a bit overplayed in this article almost like it should be a mitigating factor.

[gvstn]

114. Oh and this quote from Slate

Yes, the editors were surely aware that Tsarnaev has attracted a bizarre fan base of young women professing their crushes and asserting his innocence. But it’s ridiculous to assume that the magazine was playing off his strange cult following—an assumption we would never make for Time or the New York Times.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/17/boston_bomber_rolling_stone_cover_with_dzokhar_tsarnaev_is_good_journalism.html

Perhaps, I am being ridiculous but after reading the article, I think they were in part playing of the strange cult following. Read the whole article, it never goes too far afield of reminding you of how well liked he was, almost like the author didn't want to alienate any particular subset of young readers.

The last paragraph of the story:

One anecdote that wasn't in the article but that has been quietly making its way around town, via one of his former nurses, is that Jahar cried for two days straight after he woke up in the hospital. No one in the group has heard this yet, and when I mention it, Alyssa gives an anguished sigh of relief. "That's good to know," she says.

"I can definitely see him doing that," says Sam, gratefully. "I hope he's crying. I'd definitely hope?.?.?."

"I hope he'd wake up and go, 'What the fuck did I do the last 48 hours?'?" says Jackson, who decides, along with the others, that this, the crying detail, sounds like Jahar.

But, then again, no one knows what he was crying about.

[Bluenorthwest]

119. You admit both stories are essentially the same, but you cann't say why one is

good and the other so deeply offensive. Journalism is too important to attack without reason.

"It's a knockout
If looks could kill they probably will
In games without frontiers-wars without tears"
Peter Gabriel.

[AngryAmish]

77. The irony of discussing outrage addiction on DU ....

[otohara]

147. Everyday It's One Thing Or Another

I'm trying to curb the urge.
I do hate guns though.

[pipi_k]

79. I can see why

people outside of the area wouldn't understand the disgust and outrage felt here.

What I think sucks are people who don't understand the outrage AND think it's OK to trivialize and mock the feelings of those who do feel disgusted or outraged.

Just more of the "It doesn't hurt me, so it shouldn't hurt you" bullshit.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Can you compare this piece in the Boston Globe to Rolling Stone and explain

why one is offensive to you and the other is not?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/19/relatives-marathon-bombing-suspects-worried-that-older-brother-was-corrupting-sweet-younger-sibling/UCYHkiP9nfsjAtMjJPWJJL/story.html

The photo on the cover of RS was on the New York Times Page One in May. Same photo.
Why is the reaction to RS angry but not in the Boston Globe or NY Times? You tell me.

[pipi_k]

91. I don't have

to explain anything because I don't believe I said I was offended by either, or offended by one and not the other.

I'm saying I can understand why some people would be.

And just because those people are offended by one and not the other doesn't give anyone the right to mock them.

People don't have to justify their feelings.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. Of course you don't have to explain but if you are uable to explain why you are

'disgusted' or that you understand why some would be, then perhaps the reaction is not authentic.
When you believe in things you don't understand you suffer.

[thucythucy]

136. Because those stories appeared

within days or at most weeks of the bombings, when the general public knew nothing about the alleged bombers, their families, their motivations. It was "news" then. Even the photograph was news--people had no idea what these guys looked like, and any image was newsworthy and sought after.

Now the same material just seems rehashed and exploitative.

So that's why one iteration is offensive--at least to some people--while the others were not.

[Myrina]

81. Because how dare we accept that 'bad guys' look like US?

And why would we ever want to know what moved him & his brother to do what they did?
They're BAD! That's all we need to know - is what we were told on CNN, and by the po-po - they're BAD!!
Don't LOOK! Don't THINK! They're just BAD!! End of story!!


Gawd. So pitiful.

[karynnj]

85. These are both NewEngland companies and they can choose not to sell a magazine

if it offends their customers. They have the right to determine what they stock - and the down side is that they lose whatever sales would have happened.

This is NOT a free speech issue. Free speech does not guarantee that everyone will transmit or distribute it.

[cthulu2016]

90. As you might have noticed, the OP is not about free speech

CVS et al are free to pull the magazine, and people in Boston are free to pretend to be outraged for whatever adrenaline high they can find in it.

And everyone is free to invent straw man arguments, as you did here in batting down the un-made claim that here is a free speech issue involved here.

[BeyondGeography]

99. You set up the original strawman

saying "outrage addiction" is the main reason why people oppose the cover. If you read your own thread you can learn how wrong you were about that.

[MADem]

108. It's not a free speech issue--it's a question of expectations.

People expect the cover of the Rolling Stone to be a place where artists are glorified in carefully staged, professionally shot pictures, not a place where "dreamy" pictures of "cute" terrorists are displayed for the squealing members of the "Jahar is Innocent" club.

Quoted above, described here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/rolling-stone-boston-bombing-cover-backlash.html

[Bluenorthwest]

112. If people 'expect' that they are unaware of the history of the magazine

Here is a site with all the covers. The very first year features covers on police brutality, drugs in the military and two about the 'alternative press'.
Later they had Manson, no less, as well as GW Bush.....
http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/rolling-stone

[MADem]

120. Well, when cover after cover, year after year, is professionally posed and shot pictures of

people that one admires for their artistry, that does--and too bad if you refuse to acknowledge the obvious--create an expectation. And that HAS been the case for many, many years now.


I was a living, sentient adult being when the Manson cover came out--people were saying even back then, before computers. They just didn't "tweet" about it, but many people thought it was bullshit and jive.

The pictures of the "bad guys" are not professionally posed, softly lit, with the subject looking dreamy and attractive. This cover, though, does appeal to "The Cute Tsarnaev is INNOCENT!" fan club.

And the GWB picture does not "laud" Bush--it makes him look like a fucking dork. Given that the editor of the magazine is a wealthy guy who hated Bush, it makes sense that he would use his platform to stick it to him...but that was a blatant EXCEPTION--certainly not the rule.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/#52504740

I think a lot of people take the "opposing view" that the cover is "no big deal" because they enjoy taking a callous, uncaring attitude towards people who are still suffering. It's "cool" to "not give a shit." I find that kind of thing very unfortunate.

[Bluenorthwest]

122. What about the cover of the Cop beating someone? Nixon?

Bin Laden? All of the on that cover. People magazine put Dahmer on their cover, they NEVER do serious journalism, no one gave a shit.
To pretend that RS has not had serious covers, covers that are not studio shots, covers that depict villains, this is just a bunch of affectation.
Your claim that this killer's photo is 'professionally posed' is false, it is his own Twitter account photo. But facts don't matter and that's the point, isn't it? Why solve or understand a problem when we can be 'wicked pissed off' instead?
I can't respect folks who make stuff up to explain why they are angry.

[MADem]

127. Post 124. You need to look at those covers from MOST to LEAST recent.

You have to go back decades to find covers that are not of polished, pleasant performers--Green Day, Will Smith, Kanye--all posed for Best Dramatic Effect, like musical heroes.

They have had "serious" covers, but not in EONS, with the exception of a cartoony pic of Bush that makes him look like a doofus--not a hero.

And when did Bin Ladin ever appear on the cover of Rolling Stone? Newsweek, maybe, TIME, sure--but you're going to have to find that cover for me.

Sorry--your argument fails, and you, upthread, provided the link to those covers that proves it.

Go do what I asked you to do, and look at them from most recent to least.

[Bluenorthwest]

132. So your take is that if we ignore all the precedents and simply claim they don't

count, we can be furious? That's what you are saying. The fact that the same image was in the cover of NY Times, that other killers and the likes of Mitt Romney and Bush have been on Rolling Stone's cover does not count, why?
Your claims are simply false. You claim the history of Rolling Stone is that of Teen Beat, and you are simply incorrect.
Journalism is important. You think otherwise, we will not agree on this.

[MADem]

148. Oh, please--you just aren't making your case.

You have to go back forty years to grasp a few examples--it's clear that the magazine has adopted a paradigm over the decades that doesn't include "hard hitting news" on their covers. They prefer Jennifer Anniston, or Justin Timberlake, or Kanye West--looking blow dried, air-brushed, dreamy and perfect.

That's what sells their product.

And you're the one who keeps bringing up "Teen Beat," not me.

Like I said elsewhere, magazines that display vulgar pictures of nudes sometimes have "journalistic" articles in them--that doesn't make them a News Magazine. It makes them nudie mags that have an occasional newsworthy article between the airbrushed naked pictures.

Rolling Stone is a music entertainment industry magazine. They sometimes do a little "reporting" on the side, but their bread and butter is music and musicians, and to a lesser extent, film and televison stars.

Step right up, buy your copy, and "fight the power."

Whatever.

[karynnj]

118. My reaction to your op was that it was implicitly

implying that CVS and other stores had some ethical responsibility to carry the magazine - I simply said that they didn't. It makes sense to honor the sensibilities of your customers.

[thucythucy]

137. Why do you instantly assume that all of the outrage is pretend?

Why do you (and others on this thread) instantly assume that every single person reacting in a way you don't approve of is some hypocritical dolt? You think it beyond the realm of human possibility that someone who lost a loved one, or a friend, or a limb in this atrocity might feel bothered by seeing the "dreamboat photo" on every newsstand in the city? And that some store owners or managers, out of sensitivity to their feelings (and maybe their own) would pass on featuring this particular issue on their newsstands?

Really? To your mind it's all just "pretend outrage" for "whatever adrenaline high they can find in it?"

I can be pretty cynical sometimes, but I hope never to become as cynical as that.

And as as aside: can you seriously not understand why some of us at least find it ironic that someone would be so seemingly outraged at all the "fake" outrage in the world? Outraged enough to engage in this "outrageous" back and forth about--well--outrage?

Talk about "outrage addiction"!

[cthulu2016]

142. outrage over nothing is still outrage, so in that sense it is real

What do you want? An endorsement of outrage over something that isn't outrageous simply because it exists?

I see abortion protesters weeping like damned souls over the American holocaust. I don't doubt that they have worked themselves into a state of real anguish.

Am I supposed to see validity in their view because they have worked themselves into that emotional reaction?

When THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST was in theaters my local theater was picketed every day by people weeping and gnashing their teeth over what their preacher had told them to think about the film. (Which none of them had seen.)

Their outrage was real, in the sense they were feeling it. But it was nonsensical.

The TV and internet dictate all sorts of outrages, informing people who consider themselves to be on some side that they should be feeling an intense emotional reaction to X, a reaction that few of them would have generated without being informed what to think.

Anyone upset enough about this Rolling Stone cover to put out press releases or request that stores not sell it is engaging in an emotional hobby of some sort to make themselves feel good about ow intense and virtuous their emotional reactions are.

IMO.

[thucythucy]

143. So I guess the answer is yes,

you believe anyone "outraged" over this cover is some kind of phoney. They experience their "outrage" as genuine, but really, you know better. You know it's all simply a media-induced Pavlovian response. Such dupes! Such morans!

This would include, I guess, one of the cops shot by the suspect, and folks in the Firefighters' Union, who were first responders and personally saw some of the carnage, who have been upset by this. They, according to you, are in the same category as "people weeping and gnashing their teeth" (really, GNASHING THEIR TEETH?!!) over "The Last Temptation of Christ." Because the torture and death of a quasi-imaginary character that happened some two thousand years ago is just exactly the same as people in your own community being murdered and maimed just last spring. Something that at least some of these folks might personally have witnessed. Or, in the case of the shot cop, actually experienced. Yup. Got it.

And all these folks are so unlike yourself, whose outrage over THEIR outrage is so absolutely NOT nonsensical. Unlike theirs, your outrage isn't dictated by TV or the internet. Nope. no one is dictating to you! Not even the good folks at the Huffington Post (who, I've been told, have a little something to do with the internet), where this story has been getting so much attention. Your OP is entirely self-generated. Not a reaction to anything you've seen or read on TV or the internet. I can bank on it.

"Anyone upset enough about this to put out press releases or request that stores not sell it is engaging in an emotional hobby of some sort to make themselves feel good about ow intense and virtuous their emotional reactions are. "

Possibly. Or, as I and others have been saying, maybe at least some of them are expressing a genuine emotion about an event that has touched them and their community first hand.

As for looking for "an endorsement"--I'm simply responding to your OP, the one you posted and have been adding to for yea so many hours now. I asked for some clarification, which I received (though I notice no response to my comments on how all this plays into the cult of celebrity).

Anyway, I get it now. You are bewailing "the outrage addiction" by people "engaging in an emotional hobby." As opposed to yourself, for whom this isn't a "hobby" at all. No sirree, this is serious business here! And I can clearly see how unemotional you are.

To be serious myself for just a moment: the display of all this collateral outrage, both in your OP and in this thread, is kinda creepy. Personally, I don't have problems with the RS cover, aside from those I've mentioned in other posts. I'm not outraged. Troubled maybe, in ways I've tried to explain elsewhere, but not too terribly flustered.

I am, though, quite taken aback by some of the "outrage" in this thread by folks who clearly have no connection whatsoever to the tragic events of last spring. You are willing to condemn, abuse, and ridicule perfect strangers who may or may not have a point, but who, in many cases, have been through some quite serious trauma.

Have a little empathy, why can't you?

[Bluenorthwest]

125. Colbert

[thucythucy]

128. I'm of several minds about all this.

Yes, magazines are entitled to print whatever they want, including dreamboat covers of alleged bombers. (And BTW, until there's a trial and he's convicted, shouldn't "alleged" be a part of any headline relating to this guy)? And I certainly think it's important that we try to figure out why people do such things, as a way of trying to forestall the next atrocity.

BUT, I also have a real problem with how our culture turns the perpetrators of horrific crimes into instant celebrities, especially since celebrity itself is such a valuable commodity in this age of reality shows and people who are famous for being famous. The asshole, for instance, who murdered John Lennon was motivated to a great extent by his desire to become famous. And if you can't become famous by being an immensely talented and beloved figure, you can become almost as famous by murdering someone who is. All it takes is some determination, and a modicum of technical knowledge or a firearm.

And I have sympathy for anybody still recovering from the bombing, whose trauma might be re-stimulated by seeing this image. To describe their reaction as "outrage addiction" seems rather callous, IMHO.

Finally, isn't it just a wee bit ironic to see so many people becoming outraged at the sight of other people being outraged? Talk about "outrage addiction"!

[dembotoz]

130. zim gets off and folks are outraged at a fucking magazine cover

go figure

[MADem]

131. Gee, put HIM on the cover--we've got a few months yet before he's past his sell-by date!

Fat, smiling, happy, in his ill-fitting suit, lounging, looking relaxed, maybe with his returned gun in his hand...why not?

I mean, really--if it's OK for the "dreamy bomber" to be glorified on the cover of this magazine, why shouldn't it be OK for the "kid on a candy run killer?" Never mind the pain the glorification of that asshole might cause--it's all about "hard newz, bro" because Rolling Stone, a music industry mag, ALWAYS has these kinds of covers (not).

It seems to be what the people--a lot of them in this thread--seem to want, after all...

[Bluenorthwest]

138. Glorified? By calling him a monster, an extemist and a bomber? Where's the glory?

Rolling Stone was home to Hunter S Thompson, the birthplace of Gonzo Journalism, the publisher of 'Fear and Loathing On the Campaign Trail 1972' and other groundbreaking political journalism, but you insist it has no history of hard news and it is a 'music industry mag'.
"Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72 is a collection of articles covering the 1972 presidential campaign written by Hunter S. Thompson and illustrated by Ralph Steadman. The articles were first serialized in Rolling Stone magazine throughout 1972 and later released as a book in early 1973 .

The book focuses almost exclusively on the Democratic Party's primaries and the breakdown of the party as it splits between the different candidates. Of particular focus is the manic maneuvering of the George McGovern campaign during the Miami convention as they sought to ensure the Democratic nomination despite attempts by the Hubert Humphrey campaign and other candidates to block McGovern."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_on_the_Campaign_Trail_%2772

Yet to you it is just like Teen Beat or 17 or People. Except that People put Jeffery Dahmer on the cover....

[thucythucy]

144. I loved "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail"

one of the best political books ever written, IMHO.

But as I've said in other posts on this thread, I'm troubled by how we turn people who commit horrific acts into celebrities. So I'm a little queasy about this magazine cover. Whether or not the journalism inside is any good, you just have to know there are people out there thinking, "My life sucks. I wish I was famous. But what can I do, I'm a talentless jerk....I know---I'll kill a bunch of people in a horrible way! Hell, I bet they'll put ME on the cover of Rolling Stone!"

Surely there is some way we can do quality journalism, without catering to this sort of twisted impulse?

[MADem]

145. You're avoiding the key point I made because you know I'm telling the truth.

Do the math -- you're talking about 1972....and you're not understanding that "kids today" don't give a shit about that ancient history. That was OVER FORTY YEARS AGO.

The purpose of that cover was to try to draw "kids today" into the geezer readership of RS, because otherwise they won't survive and they know it. It was an appeal to the "Jahar cultists" as well as idiots who fancy themselves to be "fight the power" activists against the Pee Tee Bee, who are being played by a rich old man who owns a few magazines and knows how to move 'em--he's like PT Barnum, he knows there's one born every minute who will buy the tripe he's selling.

The covers in recent decades--not back in the days when their supposed "teen readership" wasn't even a gleam in their daddys' eyes--have been, by and large, CELEBRITIES. Musicians, prettily posed, with flowing hair and perfect teeth displaying cheery smiles. Movie stars, sometimes ones who PLAY musicians on film. All professionally photographed, with "dreamy" effects to make them look their best.

Don't give me ancient books, and don't give me articles as "justifications" for that shit cover. Playboy and other "nudie" mags had some "good journalism" too, but you never saw a picture of a murderer on their cover, now, did you?

People go to Rolling Stone for their core product--music and the music industry. Their occasional "serious reporting" articles are add-ons, designed to draw in a cadre of people in the hopes that they will read and stay. But that's not what the mag is about, that's just a sideline, a way of having a hand in so they can stay relevant with the hip/cool/political segment that also reads their publication. That's why their jazzy McChrystal article by the late Michael Hastings didn't have the General on the cover...it had Lady Gaga in a thong on the cover. And that's because--when they aren't trying to sell shock covers to suckers who defend this cravenly corporatist move--they know what their market is.

[NaturalHigh]

146. "Is there no limit to our national outrage-addiction?"

Answer: No. There is no limit.