On the cover of the Rolling Stone
Remember when it was a big deal to be on the cover of the Rolling Stone? Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show wrote a song to finally get a spot in that venue;
Nowadays, apparently, you only have to blow up children in the street;
I’m still wondering why McCrystal let these souless crap weasels in his headquarters.
They want to be on the edge of the culture and elevate the discussion of issues that are important to Americans, so why don’t they put a picture of George Zimmerman on the cover and treat him sympathetically?
Our buddy, Strike FO (you know, the guy who runs The Duffel Blog, so this probably isn’t true at all) says he got an advanced copy of their September 11th Anniversary issue for this year (I swiped it from his Facebook page, because I suck);
These people are the reason we can’t have decent wars and kill terrorists anymore.
Category: Media, Terror War
Rolling Stone is a lefty rag published in San Francisco. And their music reviews are crap as well.
Not even worth wiping my ass on.
I needed to see that this morning about like I need a case of mange.
The only thing that cover’s good for is target practice.
What’s sad is even after they have disrespected the families of the children that we killed by this pice of $hit there are people in this country that will continue to buy this magazine.
American Celebrity culture will be the death of everyone, I swear. You have legions of the training bra set drooling over this killer like he was the latest thing in Tiger Beat and now let’s put him on the cover of some hippy rag so he gets more notoriety.
PintoNag has a solid idea about target practice. Might have to get a few copies just for that.
“I’m still wondering why McCrystal let these souless crap weasels in his headquarters.”
You and me, and I suspect, a boatload of others too, Brother.
An irrelevant rag long past its peak, dedicated to preserving the fallacy that the baby boomers are still edgy and hip instead of impending geriatric cases. RS serves a demographic that thinks their music is still relevant 50 years after publication (which is older than big-band was when RS condemned its irrelevance in the ’60s.)
Coming soon to t-shirts on college campuses across America.
Here is the cover I prefer (if the html works).
When I see T shirts with pictures of Che and others sporting the hammer and sickle, I am “offended” and point it out to the idiot wearing the “cool” shirts on what they really stand for.
RS has crossed the “offended” line and is now in the pissing me of status.
I guess I am just thin-skinned.
I wouldn’t say their music reviews are all crap. Born to Run by Springsteen was their 18th Best Album of All Time last year.
CVS just made this post on their facebook page:
“CVS/pharmacy has decided not to sell the current issue of Rolling Stone featuring a cover photo of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect. As a company with deep roots in New England and a strong presence in Boston, we believe this is the right decision out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones.”
Bonus points: their ‘journalist’ Matt Taibbi, who vehemently criticized other journos for going into the tank for the G during the Bradley/Breanna Manning trial … Is one of the moron shills in the ‘I Am Bradley Manning’ series of Internet commercials. Now THAT’s real objective reporting, doing ‘news’ stories on an admitted felon and traitor that you’re also publicly advocating on behalf of.
Rolling Stone. Makes me think of two things: Bob Dylan and Al Gore’s airbrushed-added crotch bulge.
What is this trash? Teen Bop for terrorists?
One Point Of Correction Jonn. Dr. Hook Recorded The Song, But It Was Actually Written By Childrens Author Shel Silverstein. He Also Wrote “Boy Named Sue” For Johnny Cash.
As someone who got slimed by Rolling Stone in the past, not at all surprising. Not one bit.
But the key thing is– what will people do to make them pay for such a horrendous and insensitive editorial decision? Outrage is one thing, but people must vote with their feet- cancel subscriptions and force Rolling Stone to admit the mistake and at least apologize or show some contrition (firing the fool/tool who green-lighted the cover would be a nice start).
I don’t read the rag- never will after their blatant intellectual dishonesty perpetrated against honest, honorable troops in my brigade in 2008. But the issue isn’t RS publishing an article on this shitstain’s background and alleged motivations, but it’s all about the layout and image itself- the message it sends.
Ironic that GEN Stan McCrystal couldn’t even get the cover of the issue with the article that led to his professional undoing (he lost out to Lady Ga Ga) but this murderous bottom-feeder does for being an oxygen thief who subsists on the largesse of the American & Massachusetts taxpayer.
RS is going to do what they do in their historical far-left fashion- but if the American people pound them where it hurts- on the bottom line- the magazine and its tone deaf leadership can at least learn a valuable lesson from this. It ultimately won’t change their ideology one iota, but at least this great Nation won’t be totally lost to the indifference and apathy of our self-absorbed millennial culture.
P.S.- Soulless crap weasels…love it.
Good for CVS. I will now make it a point to shop there as opposed to competing chains.
The worst part about it is that the people that read this shit, watch Honey Boo Boo are the same ones that got ovomit into the white house…
RS is a long standing part of the problem. I haven’t bought a copy of it since sometime in the 80’s when I was doing a lot of traveling…
@11, Arby, Yeah, I heard about that on the radio today while I was running errands, KUDOS, CVS!!!
Just think, we now have plenty of range targets and shit paper in a pinch!
McChrystial was a fellow left/liberal souless crapweasel and he thought they’d help a brother out…
Considering what happened, Jonn, I’m guessing McChrystal as asked himself that question a few times. (smile)
As for Rolling Stone: as far as I’m concerned they are cordially invited, collectively, to go fornicate themselves.
ExHack: did you actually use the title “Rolling Stone” and the phrase “objective reporting” in the same sentence above? For shame, sir!
GunzRunner: the older issues printed on newspaper-style paper likely worked well as emergency TP (I never was quite that desperate when an issue was nearby, so I can’t say for sure). Not sure about the newer issues, though – I think they’re printed on glossy paper these days. (smile)
I don’t have any problem with Rolling Stone doing a thoughtful, investigative article on how the little dirtbag was radicalized and became the monster that he is. Theory being that if we can figure out why he became what he did, maybe we can do something about it happening in the future. Not accommodating the little crapweasels (I love that word @21, I’m using it
), but identifying causes and taking action to help us detect it in the future or work on the cause if possible.
I *do* have a big problem with the photo they chose as a cover. It makes him look like an innocent college kid who was set up or whatever. Couldn’t they have superimposed a photo of his booking or whatever to emphasize what he became?
That said, I don’t read Rolling Stone and doubt I ever will. They don’t seem to have any journalistic integrity. No sense in reading a bunch of slanted, made up stories.