Infuriated with Rolling Stones Magazine


I am a firm believer in freedom of press and speech.  I believe that in America we have the right to put whatever we like in our papers and say whatever we like about our politicians.  This, however, has gone WAY too far.  I am infuriated.  Recently, I have found this little ball of shame inside myself…it’s slowly uncurling…I am ashamed to be American.  I have always been proud of my nation, I salute my soldiers, and I never let the flag touch the floor.  I have always believed that we’ve got it right but the blinders have been removed and I simply cannot agree with this nation any longer.

We have to stop humanizing murderers.  We have started treating these monsters like they are celebrities and it’s sickening.  What in the world would possess Rolling Stones to put this on their cover?  He killed people, he maimed people, and he hid like a coward in a boat.  He doesn’t deserve the cover of anything and he certainly does not need to be depicted as a rock star.  Sick sick sick.  I am so infuriated by this, I don’t think I can even express myself logically at this point.  Why didn’t they put a cover up of the victims?  The eight year old little boy who was just there to see his dad finish the marathon?  What about him?  What a kick in the teeth for those that he was responsible for killing.

Bad form Rolling Stones, bad form.



  1. I agree. It was in very poor taste. The media is contributing to the problem by putting mass murderers’ names, photos, etc. out there. The best thing they could do is keep the murderers anonymous or just keep referring to them as “the suspect” or “the serial killer.”

    • I agree. We’re humanizing them and it makes me sick. If I could have posted this without the image, I would have. But I can’t talk about it without showing it. At least in my brain.

      • Truth

        They are humans… We need to stop idolizing them. But Rolling Stones isn’t The New York Times. It’s purely for entertainment. What sells? Drama. What’s more dramatic than the cover description of him?

        I don’t agree with it but magazines are the next to go after newspapers. They’re just trying to sell.

      • There is, however, an ethical question with this. Editors have to constantly juggle what sells with ethics. I think ethically someone failed here. We are never going to see an end to mass killings if we don’t stop idolizing these monsters. I think what strikes me more than anything else is how they depict him in the image. He’s in white, fuzzy sides, it’s almost angelic. It’s a twisted version. Why didn’t they choose to show his mug shot or something that depicts who he truly is. I just think it crosses a line.

  2. This is shocking. I absolutely agree with you about the representation. If I had seen this cover without your post I would have thought that this was some up and coming rock star. Shameful.

    • I know. He actually looks very handsome. Which is sickening. He shouldn’t look handsome, he shouldn’t even be there. I’m sorry but I will never see the logic in Rolling Stones doing this.

      • Have you told them how you feel? If enough people kick up a ruckus and show that it’s not acceptable then they might be a bit more careful in the future. They want sales and don’t seem to care how they get them.

      • Oh I posted on their comment section, with 1500 other people. They have done this before, it’s what they do. They push the envelope. They did the same thing with Charles Manson once. It’s just sickening and I like the magazine. I honestly do like their articles but this is just too much for me.

      • Indeed. What a shame.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: