Rolling Stone has stated several times why they put this picture on their cover.
There's even a caption under the picture stating why. I've had a
subscription to this magazine for years and they've got outstanding writers
and have brought issues to the forefront that have really been eye-openers, like
the Army General that was fired because of an article Rolling Stone wrote, and
the gripping story about the Detroit Dog Rescue. The articles they write are
not to be insensitive or mean, but to make people aware of what's really
So, bad people shouldn't be on the cover of magazines, books, newspapers,
etc. ? No more movies about bad people?Hmm. That would be a huge
change in the world of publishing and entertainment.Maybe people
would be less upset if this fellow had the common decency not to be so good
looking. Well, on second thought I guess that's not true, because O.J.
Simpson used to be good looking, too.
I will not give this terrorist one more second of fame on my computer. I will
not be buying Rolling Stone. I am hoping he soon goes to trial, I hope the jury
can find it in their hearts to find him guilty.
All they wanted is read the comments, not put a good paper out. Well if its
about expectations. Their following our leaders in just wanting to read the
comments and feel self righteous. Freedom of religion is what you do
I have never owned nor read a Rolling Stone Magazine so if everyone wants to
boycott buying their magazine, good for them. But as "2 bits" stated,
I guess they believe the philosophy that "any publicity is good
publicity".When was the last time Rolling Stone got this much
attention? Sounds like it worked.