Petition for Rolling Stone to donate profits from latest issue to Boston Marathon bombing victims
 

Petition>> https://www.change.org/petitions/rol...athon-bombings

While scores of celebrities took to Twitter to vent their anger over the apparent romanticizing of an alleged terrorist, Jack Osbourne ? son of Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne ? has taken things one step further.

Last week, he launched a petition on Change.org urging Rolling Stone magazine to donate all profits made from the current edition?s sale (retail and advertising revenue) to the victims, surviving family members and first responders adversely affected by the Boston Marathon bombings.

?Glamorizing a suspected terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine is not controversial, it?s just wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...sue-to-boston/

What the hell, seems like a good cause. I signed it.

Petitions are about as useful as praying. Except with petitions someone gets your email address.

I'll bet they wont donate a dime.

They are a magazine so they probably need every dime to keep their antiquated business model floating.

:1orglaugh

LOLERZINE!

Does that mean all the newspapers who had him on the front page should do the same?

What fucking idiot came up with this nonsense?

Do something smarter. Vote with your wallets. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I bet I speak for millions when I say that if it hadn't been reported and repeated, I'd have never known he was on there.

serious question - how is it romanticizing, or glamorizing?

I'll take a real shot at this one. People think he's handsome, cute, or pretty. They have a hard time associating a heinous action with a pretty face. That's my honest guess. They think he looks cool.

I seem to recall that there were those in the media and government who thought that Suicide Solution was a blight on society too. That it was spurning kids to commit suicide. Ridiculous then, ridiculous now. Just don't buy it. Donate to the victims directly if you feel that it's the thing to do.

i'll take a shot at it too, at least this is my view.

the story was too weak. it not only didn't support being a *cover* story, it didn't support a cover that was created to spark controversy.

the story headline on the cover was along the lines of let's look into the life of this kid and see what's behind the bomber's actions but the story truly failed to answer that question or even pose a hypothesis. the story in fact made the guy out to be a lady killer, unsubstantiated, and "brainwashed" by his brother, again, based on a friend of the bomber's view of the bomber, so the story does romanticize that guy.


:)


pr tom's view is prolly the one closer to how most are about it though.

I got a better idea...use the profits to hire better writers, editors and dump all the cRAP and get back to rock and roll....

Exactly.

they don't have to donate one red cent. its media coverage not a charity :2 cents:

I'm going to start a petition to have Jack fixed!

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Well said.

Rolling Stone doesn?t put criminals on covers (well except for Presidents :) )

Being on the cover of Rolling Stone in the past was a great honor and reserved for only great people.

AMEN :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Says in the quote I provided -- Jack Osbourne - son of Ozzy & Sharon.

They live issue to issue. They'd have to claim bankruptcy.

more jury tampering by the press :2 cents:

While scores of celebrities took to Twitter to vent their anger over the apparent romanticizing of an alleged terrorist, Jack Osbourne ? son of Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne ? has taken things one step further. :2 cents:

Part of the frustrating nature of this whole issue is people talking about what Rolling Stone does without actually knowing what Rolling Stone does.

I knew as soon as I posted that without looking at covers some one would prove me wrong :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh For real!

Part of the frustrating nature of this whole issue is people talking about what jack osbourne does without actually knowing what jack osbourne does.



:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


i keed.

Alrighty then.

EDIT: I See I was beaten to the punch.

thanks those that answered my Q. I'm not seeing it, but at least I have an idea of where those who do see it are coming from. I think. Damn, I'm way too tired lol.

Yeah, I've ended up on the mailing lists of some of these petitions who now feel they can email me about other issues - pass.

I'm not entirely sure he knows what he does.

Did anyone actually read the article?
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...world-20130717
basically the making of a monster. How someone with so much on the ball did this. No praise or glamour.

i've read the article 3x in its entirety.

glamourized

this is the conclusion of the article of why that guy blew up a bunch of people:

not kidding, that is the conclusion of the article.

So TIME magazine has made Hitler, Bin Laden, and many others it's "Man Of The Year" over the decades...but now you guys are all worried about Rolling Stone simply putting the guy on the cover and telling his story?

Our society is about an eyelash away from just living with blinders on. We don't WANT to know the full story about anything in 2013.

the picture has been shown a million times, the story was void of any facts or insight, if rs wants put a picture on the cover to capitalize on controversy orientedmarketing to sell an edition that has weak journalism, no biggie. nevertheless, very weak reporting.

This.



.

I did but apparently since it isn't a Pulitzer level piece it isn't of any value. Meanwhile, the cover is used as an excuse for a ton of other publications to run the image with opinion pieces and articles with even less substance. Oh and btw for profit.

I thought the article was a good character study.

i ranted and raved over the mccrystal story, i started a thread here and elsewhere about i called people, i emailed links, i truly gushed over that story.

funny but the rs sympathizers seem more upset at people they think are upset than those of us who aren't really upset yet can objectively critique the journalism.


if anybody wants to slam a couple quotes in here directly from the story that suggest the story is revealing or provides insight or anything new, i am completely happy to stand corrected. it seems i'm the only one referencing the actual article to back-up my critique.

:)

Rolling Stone rarely has good journalism anymore. They kind of ride the coat tails of the old guys from back in the late 1960's and 1970's who were groundbreaking.

The political stuff they write these days is written with a 100% agenda and bears no resemblance to "journalism".

They did get "lucky" a couple of years ago getting that General drunk and having him badmouth Obama to them and then getting him fired as a consequence.

But I don't think that the journalistic value of the story is what has everyone up in arms.
It's more like just another case of people being "shocked" at shit that is pretty tame.

In a society that watches shows like "Storage Wars" and "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" where boring everyday shit is made to look "exciting" and "shocking" through use of fast cut editing and dramatic music...ANYTHING seems "controversial" and newsworthy.

In other words, the big media hype over this being "controversial" is just...stupid.

Like when they begin most any new story by saying that "people are outraged"...that is the red flag that the media themselves are trying to stir up outrage and create ratings.

Things that make you go hmmm...

Or is it for the simple fact that his face made "the cover of Rolling Stone" with a supporting story that didn't really slam him so much as in a way kind of ever so subtley portrays him (in conjunction with the photo) as a romantic figure?


Both sides make valid points, but I'm still not seeing where this Jack Osbourne's point of view is any less valid than the critics of the petition's are.

see to me, glamourizing is when they do shit like have e.g. dave courtney on UK shows as a guest/guest presenter, and treat him like some cheeky chappie who isn't really bad at all.

People pay to see this bloke do 'an audience with' type shows, wtf...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Courtney

might as well get every magazine and paper to donate to the families of the people still dying everyday in iraq. Oh wait that doesn't get any attention in mainstream media, sorry.

I used to hang with Evan Wright, former editor of Hustler, who writes for Rolling Stone, usually quite eloquently too.

Just some useless name dropping trivia I though I would drop...

I would add that RS is one of the last mainstream bastions of something called reporting rather than the advertising most news channels, print and otherwise, indulge in these days.

Didn't they already announce they were going to do that anyway? I'm pretty sure I saw that headline a couple of days ago.

If you find a link for that, post it by all means.

I dont have a problem with him being on the cover. I have a problem with them using a pic that makes him look like he's about to release a new album for a new boy band, rather than looking like the murderer that he is.