Rolling Stone 'Boston Bomber' Issue Is a Hit on Newsstands
How sad for the harpie frau cunts, with their faux outrage, and their "think of the children" routine. Save it for the trial when his mug is on every magazine cover in the world.
Despite boycotts and retailers pulling the issue from shelves, controversy doesn't seem to have hurt sales.
Rolling Stone's “Boston Bomber” issue got a rash of bad publicity, and retailers like CVS and Stop & Stop pulled it from shelves after a “Boycott Rolling Stone” campaign gained steam on Facebook. But the controversy doesn't seem to have hurt newsstand sales.
Retail sales of the issue jumped 102 percent over average per-issue sales for the past year, according to Magazine Information Network. Figures are based on point-of-sale data from 1,420 retailers from July 19 to July 29. Among those retailers, 13,232 copies were sold, more than double the magazine's average sales for the prior year.
Critics accused Rolling Stone of being insensitive and glorifying a notorious criminal when it put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's photo on the cover. The photo was actually a self-portrait by Tsarnaev and had previously appeared on the cover of the May 5 edition of The New York Times, to considerably less criticism.
The boycott alone wouldn't have had a big impact on the bottom line anyway, given that only 5 percent of Rolling Stone’s total circulation is sold at retail. But the early sales estimates just go to show that once again, controversy can be a major selling point. Take the magazine’s 1970 cover featuring notorious murderer Charles Manson: Not only was it a best-seller, it also garnered accolades in the industry when it won a National Magazine Award.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||08/27/2013|
of course. All the cunts (including the OP) who love this terrorist cunt bought up the issue of their hero. These straight girls and gays are pathetic and they would feel differently had they known any of the deceased, crippled or injured victims.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||07/31/2013|
r1 = THINK OF THE CHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!!!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 2||07/31/2013|
r2, your yelling penetrated the border of the DL CSS parameters..
|by Anonymous||reply 3||07/31/2013|
R1 doesn't seem to realize that the more Faux and Breitbart blogs decry sonmething, the more the general public *including* the supposedly "morally outraged" rush to buy it. Pushes for banning= rushes for buying. Basic economics that works time and time again.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||07/31/2013|
Dzhokhar is circumcised, thankfully
|by Anonymous||reply 5||07/31/2013|
Selecting his best photo and putting it on the cover is giving him all the publicity he wanted
|by Anonymous||reply 7||07/31/2013|
again all you idiots who support this issue and cover would feel differently if you knew a bombing victim. RS has no credibility-this was about sales and controversy.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||07/31/2013|
[quote]Selecting his best photo and putting it on the cover is giving him all the publicity he wanted
That subjective. You find him hot in that particular photo, which is just a head shot. Thanks for outing yourself.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||07/31/2013|
r8 what part of r6's first paragraph were you unable to comprehend? You dumbfuck.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||07/31/2013|
I was in Barnes & Noble yesterday, they didn't put it on display, a note on the shelf tells you to go ask the front desk if you want to buy this issue.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||07/31/2013|
no, it is his best photo, R9 everyone knows it and it is his most "rocknroll"-seeming one - they have an art department and think about such matters
|by Anonymous||reply 13||07/31/2013|
The ones who are outraged are just pissed because they find him "attractive." They prefer the darkened OJ-type covers.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||07/31/2013|
They certainly aren't credible when it comes to music reporting. When were they last relevant regarding music? 1973?
It is possible to write a serious article about it. But whatever seriousness may exist in the article disappears by giving him a cover shot (his goal), with a certain kind of photo, a certain kind of framing of the photo, basically meant to celebrate him and to sell copies.
And if they did have serious articles in the past, when did they get covers? They don't. They are buried in the magazine. They give the covers to "celebrities."
|by Anonymous||reply 16||07/31/2013|
It's Rolling Stone that wants to make him appear attractive. That is why they put him on the cover.
why didn't they use this photo?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||07/31/2013|
R6 - please. Ten examples in the last three years of Rolling Stones investigative journalism. Or even 3 examples in the last year. Don't get me wrong they run some great pieces - just not covers.
Their big investigative piece on McChrystal had Lady Gaga in her underwear with rifles pointing out from her breasts on the cover.
This cover was all about "sex sells".
Clearly it worked.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||07/31/2013|
Yes, exact same thing going on there, R19.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||07/31/2013|
R19 - so you go back what 40 years?
You want to claim this is a serious cover and not about celebrities sell?
Read your history bud.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||08/01/2013|
He goes back 40 years and proves the same thing. They do not put serious issues on the cover but they are willing to make celebrities out of killers and they pick their photo and framing of the photo carefully. Sensational and meant to sell.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||08/01/2013|
R22 - not exactly. Show me one ugly murderer they put on the cover. It is about sex.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||08/01/2013|
Seriously, r19? I don't recall that issue...Fake.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||08/01/2013|
yes, it is about sex. They even change the Manson photo, kind of airbrush him a bit, get rid of the context of arrested criminal, and add a kind of halo/spotlight to add to his "celebrity"/sex appeal. Same thing!
|by Anonymous||reply 25||08/01/2013|
How can you not remember the Rolling Stone Manson issue? Of course it's not fake.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||08/01/2013|
In fact if you look at these top 20 covers, we're lucky the bomber wasn't nekkid ass nekkid.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||08/01/2013|
Most Americans missed the point, jumped to conclusions and didn't bother *reading* the article. Quelle surprise.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||08/01/2013|
wow such insensitive assholes in this thread. No surprise it's DL. May none of you have to suffer like the victims of any bombing or terrorist act.
Anyone shouting "Mary" in this thread is pathetic. Such detachment but it's not a surprise in this selfish world.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||08/01/2013|
R30, a little critical thinking wouldn't hurt.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||08/01/2013|
R32 you fucking troll, that has nothing to do with happened in April. Plenty of people who were victims weren't even born back then, or were young kids. Plenty of the victims were not Boston Irish Catholics either.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||08/01/2013|
"BTW R1, several bombing victims have stated that they view Dzhokar Tsarnaev as a victim of his brother's insanity and are waiting for all the evidence to be heard. One woman who lost her leg even referred to him as a 'poor kid'."
|by Anonymous||reply 34||08/01/2013|
That boy is going to look like every other ugly Abdullah in 10 years.
Osama bin Laden was considered cute by 70s standards in his youth. He wore bell bottoms and baseball caps. Look how that turned out.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||08/01/2013|
Although we don't seem to be willing to learn this lesson - you finance global terrorism, like the Boston Community did, one day the bombs come home.
This doesn't absolve the bombers of responsibility - but since 9/11 we've been learning a hard lesson about blow back.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||08/01/2013|
Some cop leaked a collection of photos from the manhunt, including photos of Dzhokhar on the boat. I provided a link to my favorite photo. Lifting up his shirt, his cute little Bambi face full of blood.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||08/27/2013|
Rolling Stone Magazine hasn't been relevant since 1969. I can't imagine anyone reading it. The magazine is about as rock 'n' roll as Modern Bride. I love many different forms of rock music but I have always loathed that magazine. Horrible.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||08/27/2013|
Well said, r39. Just sorry this latest stunt of theirs helped sell their shit rag.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||08/27/2013|