Disturbed’s David Draiman Rips Rolling Stone for Featuring Accused Bomber on Cover

Rolling Stone magazine has drawn an enormous amount of criticism for the cover of their current issue. It features Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the teenager charged in the Boston Marathon bombings that killed three people and injured 260. Device / Disturbed frontman David Draiman is among the many expressing outrage over the decision.

In an extended tweet, Draiman said that putting Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone (pictured here) insulted and dishonored the victims. He went on to say, “The next terrorist/murdering incident, be it another bomber, or a madman with an assault rife, unleashing fire upon a school full of children, is on you.”

A couple of retail chains have already announced they will not carry the issue with Tsarnaev on the cover, with calls for more boycotts expected. In a statement, the editors of Rolling Stone defended their choice, saying “the cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s longstanding commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage.”

Read more: http://loudwire.com/disturbed-david-...-bomber-cover/

Seriously, does anyone even read that magazine anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fansince'76

Seriously, does anyone even read that magazine anymore?

---

Now? Nope. Stopped reading it in the 90s, when the internet exploded. They are outdated and no longer relevant. However, it's not the first time they have done this. They put Charles Manson on the cover in the early 70s which probably caused the same amount of uproar. I was too young to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fansince'76

Seriously, does anyone even read that magazine anymore?

---

No ... and you just nailed the "journalistic" reason he was chosen for the cover.

I'm still waiting for Aaron Hernandez's Sports Illustrated swim suite edition.

Quote:

---

“The next terrorist/murdering incident, be it another bomber, or a madman with an assault rife, unleashing fire upon a school full of children, is on you.”

---

This is the truth right here. Somewhere another narcissistic psychopath is likely plotting his celebrity debut.

For those interested, here is a collection of photos taken by tactical photographer Sgt. Sean Murphy. Really amazing stuff.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...7/18/tsarnaev/

This is crazy. I'm glad some retail chains have decided not to have the magazine in stock.

This is a ploy for circulation, but it doesn't bother me any. It actually raises an interesting point, and the picture they used reinforces it. I'd like to read the article.

Disturbed sucks. Nuff said. :wink02:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoSlash27

This is a ploy for circulation, but it doesn't bother me any. It actually raises an interesting point, and the picture they used reinforces it. I'd like to read the article.

---

It's a story worth talking about, that's for sure. I'm frankly really interested in knowing his background and how he came to this point. But they could have used a less offensive cover that still brought that point home.

The real shame is the writer of the article is getting lost in all this. I'm sure a ton of hard work went into this and it's probably the biggest story he/she has ever covered. Her work has become an afterthought and that's really unfortunate.

I don't have a problem with this, I heard its an article about how a seemingly normal kid was radicalized which I think is a story that should be out there for people to read.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chidi29

It's a story worth talking about, that's for sure. I'm frankly really interested in knowing his background and how he came to this point. But they could have used a less offensive cover that still brought that point home.

The real shame is the writer of the article is getting lost in all this. I'm sure a ton of hard work went into this and it's probably the biggest story he/she has ever covered. Her work has become an afterthought and that's really unfortunate.

---

I don't know if the cover is that offensive, I think it shows that evil can look normal and not all bad guys look bad on the surface, some can actually look like a lead singer for a boy band.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeldawg

I don't know if the cover is that offensive, I think it shows that evil can look normal and not all bad guys look bad on the surface, some can actually look like a lead singer for a boy band.

---

^This. We always hear how radical Islam gets a foothold because people are so poor and desperate and how all we have to do is bring prosperity to change the climate. Not at all the case here. This kid had everything going for him and he traded it in to be remembered as the guy who killed and maimed women and children at the Boston Marathon.
If we are ever going to have success against these people, we have to do a better job of getting inside their heads.

the biggest issue I have with this is .....

people that do the sort of things that was done by this individual are not only looking to " terrorize " but they are looking for notoriety be it self notoriety or notoriety for their cause .....

putting him on the cover of the magazine gave him his wish , more notoriety ....

he's a worthless piece of fucking shit - and so is anybody trying to portray him as some kind of victim

here's a real victim






Boston Marathon victim still fighting to keep leg months after bombing

After 13 surgeries aimed at saving her lower left leg, including one that used live back muscle to cover an open and infected wound, a mother seriously hurt in the Boston Marathon bombings has managed to keep that injured limb – for now


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Co...otoblog600.jpg

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-tomorrow?lite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeldawg

I don't have a problem with this, I heard its an article about how a seemingly normal kid was radicalized which I think is a story that should be out there for people to read.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't know if the cover is that offensive, I think it shows that evil can look normal and not all bad guys look bad on the surface, some can actually look like a lead singer for a boy band.

---

The issue is that it glorifies his act. I don't believe it's going to be be the reason someone repeats an act as others have claimed, but there are plenty of other directions the maagazine could and should have taken.

I live in the Boston area now...and all I know is that from now on, I am going to laugh my ass off anytime I hear someone use the phrase "Boston Strong." This state is full of pussies who are giving Rolling Stone a free pass on this, starting with their governor who is nothing more then an Obama wannabe. I guess all the libtards have to stick together even if it means glorifying the guy who came into your city and tried to blow everyone up.

The one guy who stood up for the city was the cop who published pics of the terrorist from the moments he was captured to combat the Rolling Stone puff piece shit. Of course, he was immediately removed from his job. Boston strong my ass

Rolling Stone used to be the dream. If you were featured on that cover, you made it. At the top of the mountain looking down. What makes it for a good band is hearing 30,000 people sing your music word by word. Nothing better than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chidi29

The issue is that it glorifies his act. I don't believe it's going to be be the reason someone repeats an act as others have claimed, but there are plenty of other directions the maagazine could and should have taken.

---

Not to me, I think a picture of him looking normal is essential to the entire point of the article. The whole point of the article is not glorifying or victimizing him, the point is showing how an evil person can look very normal, no longer are terrorists just men in turbins and big beards with bombs strapped to their chests they can come in the form of a clean cut kid. Rolling stone also had a Charles manson cover, Time magazine had a hitler cover and a stalin cover so its really nothing new for a magazine to put a bad guy on the cover, all where flattering covers.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoeHorn

I live in the Boston area now...and all I know is that from now on, I am going to laugh my ass off anytime I hear someone use the phrase "Boston Strong." This state is full of pussies who are giving Rolling Stone a free pass on this, starting with their governor who is nothing more then an Obama wannabe. I guess all the libtards have to stick together even if it means glorifying the guy who came into your city and tried to blow everyone up.

The one guy who stood up for the city was the cop who published pics of the terrorist from the moments he was captured to combat the Rolling Stone puff piece shit. Of course, he was immediately removed from his job. Boston strong my ass

---

Do you think the governor should be stepping in and trying to censor the magazine for people in boston?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chidi29

The issue is that it glorifies his act. I don't believe it's going to be be the reason someone repeats an act as others have claimed, but there are plenty of other directions the maagazine could and should have taken.

---

From what I'm seeing, they're not "glorifying" his act at all.

Quote:

---

The Bomber: How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster.

---

^ If that's supposed to be praise, it's pretty darn faint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoSlash27

From what I'm seeing, they're not "glorifying" his act at all.

^ If that's supposed to be praise, it's pretty darn faint.

---

All about first impressions. What are you going to see first? The picture or the tiny font next to it?

Like I said, I'm sure it's a really interesting story. And now it gets overshadowed by this controversey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bayz101

Rolling Stone used to be the dream. If you were featured on that cover, you made it. At the top of the mountain looking down.

---

Yep...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fansince'76

Yep...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q

---

was going to post that same video lol

and buy 5 copies for my mother

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chidi29

All about first impressions. What are you going to see first? The picture or the tiny font next to it?

Like I said, I'm sure it's a really interesting story. And now it gets overshadowed by this controversey.

---

Bingo, your first impression you don't think terrorist and that's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeldawg

Bingo, your first impression you don't think terrorist and that's the point.

---

Hence the glorification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chidi29

Hence the glorification.

---

I don't see how showing a picture of him looking like him is glorying him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeldawg

I don't see how showing a picture of him looking like him is glorying him?

---

It shows him not as a terrorist when he is. It shows him in a better light than he is. That's what glorifying someone is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chidi29

It shows him not as a terrorist when he is. It shows him in a better light than he is. That's what glorifying someone is.

---

No it doesn't it doesn't prop him up it doesn't show him helping kids or saving orphans from a burning building it's a picture of his face with the words the bomber next to it. These are a dangerous type of terrorist that we need to be aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeldawg

No it doesn't it doesn't prop him up it doesn't show him helping kids or saving orphans from a burning building it's a picture of his face with the words the bomber next to it. These are a dangerous type of terrorist that we need to be aware of.

---

And there were plenty better pictures to depict just how dangerous he/they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chidi29

And there were plenty better pictures to depict just how dangerous he/they are.

---

We are just not going to agree I think posting a pic of him looking dangerous defeats the purpose of the article'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steeldawg

We are just not going to agree I think posting a pic of him looking dangerous defeats the purpose of the article'

---

And posting a picture that clearly offends and turns off countless people from ever reading the article defeats the purpose of the article too.