Just like Rolling Stone has every right to put on their cover what ever they want. Every outlet has every right to decide whether or not to put it on their shelves.
Yeah well there wasn't much outrage when Barack Obama was on the cover, and he has bombed many more innocent civilians than this kid. I don't think Rolling Stone's intent is to glamorize a terrorist.
I consider it morally unconscionable to try to chill an exercise of a free press through such coercion. If everything that might offend a few people can easily be surpressed by large chain stores, then freedom for us all is greatly reduced.
Bottom line, Rolling Stone's intent is to sell as many mags as they can. If that entails photographing and exhibiting a turd on the cover, they'll try it.
Didn't TIME mag have Bin Laden on the cover? I know Hitler was Time mag's "Man of the Year" in 1938 (?) , and Castro has been on Times cover a bunch of times.....
How is Rolling Stone any different than every media outlet in America? I bet CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or any other have shown this guy's picture a thousand times.
And just my opinion, but RS wants to shock to be seen as cutting edge, and they got the response they were looking for.
This is the exact same picture that was on the cover of the New York Times soon after the bombing. I don't recall hearing of any stores boycotting it. In my opinion, I think it paints a pretty interesting picture. Not all terrorists are angry faced, bearded men running around in thowbs and kufis chanting "Death to America". Instead a picture of a handsome, american college student that could be a neighbor or friend. This normal looking guy could be someone I know.
IMHO this is also the retail outlets looking to jump on the PR bandwagon to get people in their doors as well. If this was so offensive to the American public, then the true measure of that would be for this issue to sit on the news stands and be returned to the publisher, for not selling
For stores to not make it available is not right, for us the public to snub the issue would be a true measure of it being in poor taste. That way I can show my opinion of it's content, not have that opinion usurped by some corporate flunkie deciding to make a statement for his 'companies' standards.
I never said that they SHOULD pull the mag from the racks, only that they had a right to do so. This to me is just a ginned up controversy, (Not by you Howard) but by the groups that have expressed the 'Outrage' in the first place.
Time Magazine's man or women of the year is a place held by the person that most influences history for that year whether for better or worse, if we all think back there were groups that expressed outrage over many, many figures chosen for that cover, and some stores did in fact pull the Time over the years.
So to clarify, while I recognize the right, I do not endorse the action.
Frankly, I think there are far more pressing things going on that we should be expressing outrage over.
Every entity in this situation makes a choice. Rolling Stone make the choice to put him on the cover because he is in their demographic (their reasoning). Along with their choice comes a set of consequences. The stores make a choice whether or not to carry it. Along with that choice comes a set of consequences. The end user makes a choice whether or not to purchase the magazine, whether or not to continue supporting the store, keeping or cancelling their subscription, and so on. Everywhere the word choice is used, you could insert "calculated risk" as well, and that is how market forces should work, from manufacture to end user, choices are made and consequences either enhance or inhibit the bottom line.
Rolling Stone still publishes? I haven't read a magazine in 5 years. I get all of my news online. This is a sign of desperation in print media, its a last ditch effort to keep a dying mode of media alive.
David, I'm pretty sure your right to purchase a copy of any magazine will not
diminish a bit becuase some chains don't like it, and won't sell it.
Who cares!!! Going to Tops to grab a copy just to piss off those who don't sell it
lol...
On one side I can see the outrage of having this terrorist(yes I said terrorist) on the cover as it would give people the feeling that Rolling Stone is giving undue spotlight attention to someone who is responsible for many deaths and injuries.
On the other side of the coin, I can see Rolling Stone's right, as a member of the free press, to print whatever they wish, including whomever they wish to place on the front cover of their magazine.
But then there's the third side to view, and that's the right of retailers to choose not to have this issue of RS on their shelves.
frank, that's not the point I am trying to make...I don't need a chain of stores to censor what I read....besides TOPS has used it's authority to pull the issues of rolling stone too as well as wegmans.....I will use my discretion and avoid these stores as much as I can....... I
due to a store "policy" of asking for a "drivers license" to purchase tobacco products at Kenyons stores, I will not do any future business with them. I do know how to boycott. not that anyone cares, but it does give me a choice as to where I spend my hard earned money....so good bye wegmans,tops, cvs and kenyons, I wish you nothing....
Just like Rolling Stone has
Just like Rolling Stone has every right to put on their cover what ever they want. Every outlet has every right to decide whether or not to put it on their shelves.
Yeah well there wasn't much
Yeah well there wasn't much outrage when Barack Obama was on the cover, and he has bombed many more innocent civilians than this kid. I don't think Rolling Stone's intent is to glamorize a terrorist.
Stores have a right, of
Stores have a right, of course, but should they?
I consider it morally unconscionable to try to chill an exercise of a free press through such coercion. If everything that might offend a few people can easily be surpressed by large chain stores, then freedom for us all is greatly reduced.
Thumbs up, Dave.
Bottom line, Rolling Stone's
Bottom line, Rolling Stone's intent is to sell as many mags as they can. If that entails photographing and exhibiting a turd on the cover, they'll try it.
Oh, wait, I guess they've done it before.
We all bought it when Hitler
We all bought it when Hitler was on the cover. Think about it.
Didn't TIME mag have Bin
Didn't TIME mag have Bin Laden on the cover? I know Hitler was Time mag's "Man of the Year" in 1938 (?) , and Castro has been on Times cover a bunch of times.....
Maybe its just too soon ? I am torn.....
How is Rolling Stone any
How is Rolling Stone any different than every media outlet in America? I bet CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or any other have shown this guy's picture a thousand times.
And just my opinion, but RS wants to shock to be seen as cutting edge, and they got the response they were looking for.
This is the exact same
This is the exact same picture that was on the cover of the New York Times soon after the bombing. I don't recall hearing of any stores boycotting it. In my opinion, I think it paints a pretty interesting picture. Not all terrorists are angry faced, bearded men running around in thowbs and kufis chanting "Death to America". Instead a picture of a handsome, american college student that could be a neighbor or friend. This normal looking guy could be someone I know.
Well put, Brett.
Well put, Brett.
IMHO this is also the retail
IMHO this is also the retail outlets looking to jump on the PR bandwagon to get people in their doors as well. If this was so offensive to the American public, then the true measure of that would be for this issue to sit on the news stands and be returned to the publisher, for not selling
For stores to not make it available is not right, for us the public to snub the issue would be a true measure of it being in poor taste. That way I can show my opinion of it's content, not have that opinion usurped by some corporate flunkie deciding to make a statement for his 'companies' standards.
I never said that they SHOULD
I never said that they SHOULD pull the mag from the racks, only that they had a right to do so. This to me is just a ginned up controversy, (Not by you Howard) but by the groups that have expressed the 'Outrage' in the first place.
Time Magazine's man or women of the year is a place held by the person that most influences history for that year whether for better or worse, if we all think back there were groups that expressed outrage over many, many figures chosen for that cover, and some stores did in fact pull the Time over the years.
So to clarify, while I recognize the right, I do not endorse the action.
Frankly, I think there are far more pressing things going on that we should be expressing outrage over.
so all you "yes" voters feel
so all you "yes" voters feel you have the right to tell me what I can and can't read? shame on you....
Every entity in this
Every entity in this situation makes a choice. Rolling Stone make the choice to put him on the cover because he is in their demographic (their reasoning). Along with their choice comes a set of consequences. The stores make a choice whether or not to carry it. Along with that choice comes a set of consequences. The end user makes a choice whether or not to purchase the magazine, whether or not to continue supporting the store, keeping or cancelling their subscription, and so on. Everywhere the word choice is used, you could insert "calculated risk" as well, and that is how market forces should work, from manufacture to end user, choices are made and consequences either enhance or inhibit the bottom line.
Rolling Stone still
Rolling Stone still publishes? I haven't read a magazine in 5 years. I get all of my news online. This is a sign of desperation in print media, its a last ditch effort to keep a dying mode of media alive.
David, I'm pretty sure your
David, I'm pretty sure your right to purchase a copy of any magazine will not
diminish a bit becuase some chains don't like it, and won't sell it.
Who cares!!! Going to Tops to grab a copy just to piss off those who don't sell it
lol...
This is a hard one to
This is a hard one to opinionize.
On one side I can see the outrage of having this terrorist(yes I said terrorist) on the cover as it would give people the feeling that Rolling Stone is giving undue spotlight attention to someone who is responsible for many deaths and injuries.
On the other side of the coin, I can see Rolling Stone's right, as a member of the free press, to print whatever they wish, including whomever they wish to place on the front cover of their magazine.
But then there's the third side to view, and that's the right of retailers to choose not to have this issue of RS on their shelves.
frank, that's not the point I
frank, that's not the point I am trying to make...I don't need a chain of stores to censor what I read....besides TOPS has used it's authority to pull the issues of rolling stone too as well as wegmans.....I will use my discretion and avoid these stores as much as I can....... I
due to a store "policy" of asking for a "drivers license" to purchase tobacco products at Kenyons stores, I will not do any future business with them. I do know how to boycott. not that anyone cares, but it does give me a choice as to where I spend my hard earned money....so good bye wegmans,tops, cvs and kenyons, I wish you nothing....
I need some negative
I need some negative votes....I am going to go purchase a copy of this magazine, i'm going to frame it and hang it in my garage.....
I won't buy it, but I also
I won't buy it, but I also won't tell private entities what magazines they can or cannot sell.
Now, if people do not like the idea of a store selling that issue, they have the option of voting with their money.