|
Known for covering all things pop culture and rock and roll, Rolling Stone magazine lost a lot of subscribers recently with the release of their magazine cover on July 19th, 2013, the face adorning all copies released was one that a good amount of the U.S population must have wanted to avoid. The cover features Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombing suspect, and has been met with a lot of criticism and discussion about right versus wrong versus journalism. Simply reporting the news means relaying nothing but the facts. That is what unbiased news is. No opinions. No emotions. No bias. Unbiased news, however, doesn’t sell. The media knows this and they play the game accordingly, but how far is too far? Has Rolling Stone finally crossed the line from what is acceptable to what is better left unsaid? What is interesting with the dilemma facing Rolling Stone is that this issue has nothing to do with the story itself. No one has read the story yet; for all the general public knows, it could be one of the best, unbiased news stories to date. The problem is that Rolling Stone decided to glamourize Tsarnaev and place him on the cover of a world-renowned magazine. They could have easily picked a photo of one of the bombing survivors or of the policemen who came to the public’s aid on that tragic day. Bostonians, in particular, are so up in arms about this cover that local drug stores and supermarkets are refusing to sell the magazine at their stores. While we do not yet know if the story is littered with bias, placing the bomber on the cover and glamourizing the shot was an act of bias. Once again, the media has decided what it is that the public wants to see. By doing so, the magazine is sending a horrible message to impressionable youth. By making Tsarnaev look like a Jonas Brother and sticking him on the cover of the rock and roll magazine, it doesn't really seem like the repercussions to bombing a city are very severe. You get fame with folly. This is yet another reason why unbiased news is simply the way to go. A huge magazine like Rolling Stone cares about one thing…making money. If their stories have to be a little biased or if they have to upset a few thousand people in the process, so be it. The difference between this story being featured in Rolling Stone and it being featured in an unbiased news source is that the cover would not have been glamourized with an unbiased news source. In unbiased news there is no such thing as retouching; there is no such thing as glamourizing anything or anyone, because that leads people to form a certain opinion on the matter. Unbiased news gives you the facts and lets you, the reader, come up with an opinion of your own. What are your thoughts? Is Rolling Stone in the wrong or does the public need to cool their jets? About Us:
NewsLab is a website that filters and provides the news the way that it was originally intended: ad free, concise and unbiased. From CNN to ESPN, the most reputable news sources from around the country are carefully scanned for stories that provide useful information for busy professionals on the go. Served daily, readers can get their fill of business, lifestyle, political, economical, and headlining news. Every day, on every device, for every business need. Contact Us:
NewsLab
Phone: 561.828.8991
info@thenewslab.net
http://newslab.us
Related Articles -
Unbiased News, Rolling Stone, Ad-Free News, Daily News, Filtered News, Concise News, Factual News, News Lab, Latest News, Breaking News,
|
