<p>I don’t know if this link will work, but here’s the exact same photo, also large and in color, on the cover of the NYTimes. Just interesting why that didn’t elicit reaction.</p>
<p><a href=“https://twitter.com/stefanjbecket/status/357295236613021696/photo/1[/url]”>https://twitter.com/stefanjbecket/status/357295236613021696/photo/1</a></p>
<p>
And I think you need to go learn how to not judge a person on their age. Though I guess that’s a lesson most on this website seem to have never been taught. Or else, they are told it yet ignore the lesson in favor of the outdated, “Your word means nothing because I’m older than you.” Grow up. That’s an argument used by 10 year olds to justify bossing around their younger siblings.</p>
<p>For the record, I was saying that he actually has a moral compass seeing as we can see regret. Which means he’s not a sociopath. That was my entire point. He’s not a sociopath who has no regard for human life. He knows what he did is wrong. He’s not a monster. He’s a guy who messed up royally.</p>
<p>Context. Context. Context.</p>
<p>My S came by when I was reading the article, and snorted in derision at both the picture and the language on the cover, which he considered to be ridiculously dramatic. He said something like “she’s their yellow journalist.”</p>
<p>
When will some of you parents realize that this “comeback” is just an excuse to ignore a justifiable stance on a topic. It’s the equivalent to yelling out the chant “I’m rubber. You’re glue…” Grow up.</p>
<p>The teen fan club…goodness. It’s an unfortunate thing, but it honestly looks like they’re misinformed and unaware of the impact his actions made on millions and millions of lives. The picture really humanize him. It makes him look like another kid you’d see walking on the street.</p>
<p>Are we in that age where the media put up “good” pics of terrorists and murderers just because it look more attractive? I was especially disturbed by the amount of good pictures put up by CNN of the bombers and they had it on one of those cycle (after the bomber was caught).
But I think people make too much of a deal about the rolling stone picture, imo. People had been getting worked up over the things that impact them not.</p>
<p>Wasn’t there some indication that Adam Lanza was aware of the body count in other mass murders, and interested in surpassing the competition?</p>
<p>I certainly hope the publicity he gets has no impact on any of us. But I’m not hopeful.</p>
<p>I notice no one has commented on the typography, which is chosen carefully by art director and editor, nothing accidental about it.</p>
<p>What’s the message conveyed by the slightly “wild west” typeface used this time? Compare to other recent issues. Is this Billy the Kid? </p>
<p>An article on the front page of BBC News this morning succinctly explains, for those that do not understand context, the cover of Rolling Stone versus page 1 of the New York Times:</p>
<p>“Rolling Stone is different because it’s done so much over the decades to shape American popular and celebrity culture.”</p>
<p>
I think that’s it. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people who aren’t that familiar with the magazine think it’s sort of just a kind of Tiger Beat for slightly older readers, which isn’t really accurate.</p>
<p>
That may have once been true, but I don’t think it’s really been true for at least 20 years. Its US circulation is less than that of Golf Digest.</p>
<p>^ Circulation of The New York Times has dropped off a cliff as well, which has nothing to do with its image as one of the august newspapers of the world (deservedly or not).</p>
<p>Try this: compare the version of the picture that the NYT ran to the RS cover. Note how the cropping and placement of text and so forth to frame his face and emphasize his eyes turns a pretty straightforward, slightly awkward selfie of a good-looking kid against a wall into a glamour shot of a rock star.</p>
<p>If you can’t see that, then I guess you could just take Snowdog the journalist’s word for it.</p>
<p>I can’t think of a movie that revolves around NYT. RS has Almost Famous though. :)</p>
<p>Consolation, you do realize you’re comparing a magazine cover to a picture in an online article, right?</p>
<p>Do you understand how magazine covers work? You take a pictur and put text around it. That is simply what RS did.</p>
<p>RS enlarged the image too. Brightened/lightened it up.</p>
<p>They cropped it and added contrast and saturation. </p>
<p>What’s wrong with that?</p>
<p>Niquii77, no, I am not. I am comparing a photo of the front page of the print edition of the NYT to the print edition of the RS. I fully understand how magazine covers work. I was working in communications probably before you were born. Do you seriously think that they just slap some type and pictures on a page? Do you have ANY idea of composition, font choice, all of the minute decisions that go into creating an image? Have you ever taken an art history class and analyzed the composition of a painting? Do you have ANY idea what an art director does? </p>
<p>You asked that people not condescend to you because of your youth. Could you try it in return?</p>
<p>Well, of course they enlarged it; it had to fit on the cover of the magazine which is larger than the space that the NYTimes allocates to pictures! </p>
<p>And of course it looks brighter, because it’s printed on glossy paper instead of newsprint!</p>
<p>It’s still the exact same picture. There’s no charge or evidence of manipulation – it’s not as though RS airbrushed out facial hair, or wrinkles, or changed the design of his shirt, or gave him muscles he didn’t have to make him look more attractive. </p>
<p>Look – is it the specific picture you’re objecting to – in which case it’s pretty shaky ground when it’s the same picture that’s been all over – or the fact that there is ANY picture of Tsarnaev on the cover of a magazine? That’s a different argument, and that has nothing to do with how “pretty” he may or may not be.</p>
<p>I never said it was photoshopped. It may have been: I can’t tell from the versions I have available to look at. </p>
<p>It uses the exact same picture, but it is NOT the exact same IMAGE.</p>
<p>Look, think about it: what if they had used the same version of the photo the NYT did. With all the white space. With the arm in a somewhat awkward position. Would that have made Jahar look like a rock star? Of course not. </p>
<p>I simply can’t believe that someone cannot see the techniques in play here, completely leaving aside the issue of whether or not one thinks it was a good idea to put this image of him on the cover of Rolling Stone.</p>
<p>
Misunderstanding then. Still, a magazine cover picture is going to be different from a newspaper picture. </p>
<p>
No, I don’t “seriously” think that. I’ve made magazine covers before. You adjust the text to focus of the cover photo. Of course his face is “framed”. Just because a bomber is on the cover of their magazine doesn’t mean they’re going to throw out all the tricks in making an attractive magazine cover. </p>
<p>
When did I condescend you because of your “youth”. You’re the one who brought age into this:
Quote me of when I talke about your age. </p>
<p>
Yes! </p>
<p>
I agree with this. Why would two different companies use the same picture for two different purposes?</p>
<p>I don’t understand why you think he looks like a rock star. He looks like who he is - a 19/20 something, mildly handsome (not my personal taste), kind of scruffy dark-haired guy. He looks that way in the NYT picture, and he looks that way in the RS picture. </p>
<p>I know my way around advertising and art directing, but all they did was crop and adjust saturation to fit a glossy magazine cover. The NYTimes could have just as easily cropped the picture; they chose not to, but there’s nothing inherently more “honest” or “real” about their version.</p>
<p>Niquii, I was referring to your deep tone of condescension towards me: apparently I was too dumb and too unsophisticated to even know what I was looking at, because, you know, everyone else–especially a parent??-- is a digital idiot. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BINGO!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THEY CHOSE NOT TO. Why, do you think? If you really don’t see a difference, then with the best will in the world there is nothing more to be said.</p>