There's a major backlash at Rolling Stone magazine because they've decided to put a young man responsible for a heinous act of terror against out country on the cover. For the record, I'm not thrilled with the choice either but I do question the anger and rage of those who are so offended. Why? Well, for weeks, the same person donned the cover of every newspaper, nobody got upset at that, nobody protested or stopped buying the paper. In fact, it's arguable that it sold more newspapers because people wanted to read the story and stay in touch with the news. Rolling Stone is the same as a newspaper, a for profit media journal, so why should they be held to a different standard that the daily papers?
I think all the rage is nonsense. If we are to live in this so-called free society and we really are celebrating freedom of the press than any rage against such a cover is, whether you choose to believe to admit it a contradiction of our first amendment rights. There are valid things to be upset about but I just can't wrap my own head around being so upset about this.
I know that some of you will disagree with my thoughts, that's okay - and I am willing to hear out your side and your rationale. I welcome all to post comments here and offer respectful discussion.