Critics are saying they make him look glamourous, like a ''rock star'', comparing it to their covers featuring The Doors' Jim Morrison:
Sure, if dying in your bath is what passes for glamour.
Funny how no one batted an eye when the New York Times featured the exact same fucking picture on their front page:
I know the concept of ''innocent until proven guilty'' has taken a beating of late, and how there are innocents on death row and George Zimmerman walks free...
But to call for a boycott of one of the most important publications of the 20th Century because they dared show that appearances can be deceiving, that a popular kid who is a good student can veer from the straight path, that not all terrorists are disgruntled old men with long beards - is completely missing the point.
Shit can happen, and can spiral out of anyone's control. Not all troubled teens turn downright ''evil'', not every honor student becomes a killer, but the ''perfect storm'' of circumstances can bring a home-grown threat to life just as much as blindly waging useless wars abroad, or blindly supporting countries that get on other countries' nerves on purpose.
I say ''kudos, Rolling Stone''. Instead of putting Maroon 5 or Bruno Mars on your cover for a vapid, 3-page piece on how hard it is to do your own shopping when you're a superstar, you strapped your balls on and went ahead with the main article of the summer.
Then again, you also put Charles Manson on your cover once...
No comments:
Post a Comment