Boston Marathon Explosions

[steventangent]

Rolling Stone has been a liberal editorial and celebrity gossip rag for a long time. Real long time.

[circuit bored records]

Just read the article, don't really know why I read through the whole thing. It's somewhat insightful, I guess, but I feel like i didn't really learn anything new from it or any different points of view like I was expecting. The most interesting thing is how Reitman was able to get in close with his circle of friends and get them to open up but at the same time everything they say is pretty predictable and is complete repetition of what's been said in the past about the bomber, just put under a microscope. One great and meaningful quote from a professor but I probably could have read it elsewhere. I guess I was just expecting, I don't know... more.

It's here in case anyone else wanted to read it:

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

[thebiglebowski]

remember all the outrage with netflix when they separated their streaming/dvd sales and hiked the price up a bit for both? whatever happened to all the canceled subscriptions and people downright mad and how netflix might be over? yeah, people just making idle threats, because everyone i knew who was upset who said they canceled wound up not doing so.

Netflix lost a bunch of subscribers. It tanked their stock price to 1/3 of what it was. they abandoned Qwikster and the CEO issued a public apology for fucking up.

Netflix recovered nicely and are back to fine, but the discussion at hand isn't "will this bankrupt RS", but "will this single issue cause more damage than press." In that case, Netflix not a good company to compare it to.

[BuzzersonKillwell]

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

[controlthebleeding]

Netflix lost a bunch of subscribers. It tanked their stock price to 1/3 of what it was. they abandoned Qwikster and the CEO issued a public apology for fucking up.

Netflix recovered nicely and are back to fine, but the discussion at hand isn't "will this bankrupt RS", but "will this single issue cause more damage than press." In that case, Netflix not a good company to compare it to.

 

yeah, i'm totally off, bad example. my bad. 

[Guest]

my gal was just in Boston last week, she was staying pretty close to the memorial (it was just outside or door or something of that nature), though it was a terrible terrible travesty, it's pretty amazing how well a community can come together to overcome something so awful.  I'm pretty excited knowing I may be living there in less than a year.

 

woah.. what is this about?!

[Guest]

to anyone shouting that "this doesn't belong in a music magazine", they are constantly writing about politics and world affairs. 

[futures]

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

I heard about these photos on the news this morning.  They were saying that it was wrong to have released these photos.  I don't think I agree.  Those photos are a perfect example of what photojournalism is (read: should be).  They're straightforward, they tell a story, and they're real.  But news today would rather defend a terrorist by hiding images like this - pretend they didn't happen, and then go ahead and report about how Miley Cyrus released a 4 minute music video of herself twerking.

[BuzzersonKillwell]

“Murphy wants the world to know that the Tsarnaev in the photos he took that night — defeated and barely alive, with the red dots of sniper rifles lighting up his forehead — is the real face of terrorism, not the handsome, confident young man shown on the magazine cover,” wrote John Wolfson, the editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine.

 

Pretending terrorism has a "real face", the same way we pretend it's a real thing that can be defeated in a war certainly makes things easier, but I can't say I agree with that rationale. I'm happy he released the photos though, whatever the reason.

[souljacker8888]

I agree the self righteous reactionary response to the magazine is pretty insincere from a lot of people. The people yelling about how Rolling Stone has no business printing this kind of story really have no clue as to what R.S. is, or its history. Sure there are people who really have valid reasons for not wanting any kind of acknowledgement of the guy, but that is just not possible, or ultimately really beneficial to sweep it all under the rug.

 

I do however agree, somewhat, with the people that have a problem with the choice of cover image. If it fits the story (which I have not read) and somehow ties into him just being an ordinary kid corrupted or gone wrong.. *maybe*... but, I admit when I saw the image with no context and not having looked closely at the cover blurbs, I figured it was some indie rock guy getting his 15 minutes!  It does glamorize him to a certain degree. I mean that is probably our own perceptions of what a cool Rolling Stone cover person usually looks like (he fits in with the various music/movie stars they've had on the cover over the years). If they had used a more restrained photo, I doubt the issue would have been so blown out of proportion.

 

 

 

( I removed a BUNCH of phrases that were very big puns, but gave in for the last sentence)

 

 

 

 

[thebiglebowski]

Pretending terrorism has a "real face", the same way we pretend it's a real thing that can be defeated in a war certainly makes things easier, but I can't say I agree with that rationale.

 

I get what you are saying. Terrorism is an idea, not a person, place or thing and you can't shoot an idea.

 

At the same time, that idea is executed through people. Through our foreign intelligence, we know who some of the leaders of these groups are and sometimes a lead on where they are. And if a foreign government is providing a safe haven for terrorists, then it is a legitimate conversation (not necessarily automatically a yes) to have as to whether that government should be removed (I'm obviously referencing the war in Afghanistan (and even drone strikes in Pakistan). Not touching on Iraq).

 

I'm not necessarily making a case for war. I acknowledge the possibility that through different foreign policy some terrorists would no longer want to target the US. But our generation can't go back and say "maybe the idea of creating the country of Israel isn't the best thing. There's already a country there." We can't change cold war politics and our energy policy. But we play the cards we have been dealt. And part of our cards is that there are people in other countries right now who would level our country to the ground if they had the opportunity. We can't just leave them to plot against us and pray that they don't make it onto our soil.

 

I guess my whole point was that I understand your point but I think you are painting an incredibly complex situation (world politics, religion, human propensity to kill each other) and painting it in a way too simple way.

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

I dont understand why this is such a big deal.  magazines have put controversial photos on the cover all the time. 

[BuzzersonKillwell]

Your point and my point are the same Lebowski, I think. My point was largely that calling something "the real-face of terror" simplifies the situation to the point of being counter-productive. 

 

I agree we can't just leave them to plot against us (I think) but I'd say our current strategy or terrorizing Afghani and Pakistani might not be the best approach. Are the very least, it seems pretty short-sighted. 

 

Not to imply you agree or disagree with that last bit.

[BuzzersonKillwell]

Seems like Scotland might have the right approach when dealing with Terrorists.

 

[Guest]

He is a TRUE AMERICAN HERO. I don't care that he's in Not America. TRUE. AMERICAN. HERO.

[sonsofvipers]

i feel, while some people are genuinely upset, there are hoards of those people who otherwise wouldn't have said much of anything if anyone else hadnt. But, like sheep, they want to somehow seem assimilated with others on how distraught they are by the magazines cover, only then going back to writing facebook posts about what cereal they had for breakfast.

 

and let's be real, the people threatening to cancel are probably on a free 3 month trail basis anyway and will most likely forget about this whole thing by the time it's time to renew.  but i could be wrong. because personally, i don't know anyone who subscribes to rolling stone. 

 

remember all the outrage with netflix when they separated their streaming/dvd sales and hiked the price up a bit for both? whatever happened to all the canceled subscriptions and people downright mad and how netflix might be over? yeah, people just making idle threats, because everyone i knew who was upset who said they canceled wound up not doing so.

^ so much truth right here.

also your points reminded me of this Onion article:

 

Facebook: ‘We Will Make Our Product Worse, You Will Be Upset, And Then You Will Live With It’

http://www.theonion.com/articles/facebook-we-will-make-our-product-worse-you-will-b,33074/