Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
stop letting them in, start kicking them out, and under no circumstances bow to there requests, the separation of Church and State must be retained and reinstated, if they don't like it they can all go somewhere else
So - who has read the article, and who is simply reacting to the "buzz" surrounding the cover photo? Just curious; I'm not judging anyone.
In my pinion who gives a shit, i dont read or buy shit magazines, i dont watch shit "news" programs etc etc. This thread is exactly the intent of this shit magazine cover,start a buzz,start a debate, get folks emotions up, sell a lot more shit magazines
I don't think it's smart. If I remember correctly, the majority of people here were upset with the way the media handled the Sandy Hook deal. We all remember the shooter's name but none of the victims. We learned that Adam Lanza was obsessed with mass shootings and wanted to cause the worst one in history. Things like magazine covers and indepth articles give the next whackjob further incentive. Not that it will be the sole reason a kid will want to blow up innocent people, but the thought of making the cover of Rolling Stone does appeal to people. Rolling Stone should have made him look like the coward and terrorist he is, not a Jim Morrison wannabe. Nothing is by accident in printing. Anyone remember the John McCain photoshoot in 2008? It was done by a Lib photographer and she portrayed him as an angry, old white man. The cover photo of the Boston Bomber just has that "cool" "defiant" look.
I'm not boycotting the magazine or anything, I just feel the tone could have been set better with perhaps a cover photo of the dude with his legs blown off and still keep the article of Tamerlan as written.