WootBot


quality posts: 14 Private Messages WootBot

Staff

Poll: How do you feel about that Dzhokar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone cover?
  • 52.5% - Disgusted: it glamorizes murder for nothing more than cheap publicity 966
  • 14.8% - Annoyed: doing a cover story is OK but they should've chosen a less dreamy picture 273
  • 27.5% - Indifferent: it's just a magazine cover, who cares? 505
  • 5.2% - Intrigued: I'm definitely going to read the story 95
1839 votes

Well, how do you fare compared to the Zeitgeist? Chat up your fellow wooters and let us know how lame this poll was or what obvious choices we missed. For example: Was this poll a) STUPID, b) DUMB, c) POINTLESS or d) ALL OF THE ABOVE?

curtisuxor


quality posts: 56 Private Messages curtisuxor

However you feel, it worked. They are definitely getting people's attention with the cover.

Magazines have done (and continue to do) worse. I don't read that crap, so it doesn't matter to me.

cappo


quality posts: 33 Private Messages cappo

This is the first I've heard about it... which makes Woot! free advertising.


swantner


quality posts: 2 Private Messages swantner

Never even heard about it. Certainly still don't care.

Also, you spelled "Dzhokhar" wrong.

jblosser99


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jblosser99

Rolling Stone is still published? Not being snarky - I didn't know it was still around.

Maybe they're trying to become "relevant" again?

Oh, and freedom of the press - and my and your freedom to ignore it / not buy it if it offends our sensibilities.

*edit: to the poll choice of "murder": I believe what happened in Beantown would correctly be called "terrorism".

Buysharp


quality posts: 1 Private Messages Buysharp

I refused to choose one of their pat answers. I wish they'd given one more middle of the road answer.
"Ambivalent. This is the type of thing Rolling Stone has a tradition of doing." or "Ambivalent. NY Times already ran the picture above to the fold. What's the controversy?"

SumDuud


quality posts: 21 Private Messages SumDuud

I'm on the Where's the Hershey's are you talking about woot poll bandwagon

Let's see the quality impulse buys!
Wooter to blame for sellout: SumDuud
Sellout time: 8:11:25 AM Central Time

Contrarian by nature.

glamontagne


quality posts: 3 Private Messages glamontagne

The next time they publish his photo on a magazine cover, it should be of his lifeless body. I am boycotting Rolling Stone.

Random Crap - Level 7 Woot-Off Lights
Dazzle Video Creator Platinum Philips Prestigo Universal Remote Altec Lansing M604 for Zune Remote Control Helicopter Train Set Microsoft Zune 30GB Roadside Emergency Kit Microsoft Zune 6 Player Texas Hold’em Poker

bkelly99


quality posts: 1 Private Messages bkelly99

Well said, you took the words right out of my mouth! I have not read the article, but if it helps to educate the younger, desensitized and politically ignorant youth, then I have no problem with it.

The nation is full of young adults that only care about "what's in it for me" and have no clue what really goes on outside in the real world.

Bret Kelly

jackw


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jackw

I have to admit that I had to Google it, before I understood the question, but then my answer was firm to the point. This is something that should never have been presented like this. I'm disturbed enough about it that if I DID have a subscription to Rolling Stone, it would be cancelled immediately.

I live the way I type, FAST, with a lot of mistakes.

Hasteur


quality posts: 1 Private Messages Hasteur

Congratulations Woot, you've hitched your wagon to a sinking ship.

Was it in poor taste (and out of the mandate of the publication) to publish an article about the domestic terrorist? Yes

Is it in incredibly bad taste to comment about the article/posting on a site that doesn't have anything to do with those issues? Hell yes

Will Woot feature polls in the aftermath of other catastrophic events (such as terrorist attacks, weather disasters, earthquakes)? I hope not. In fact I'd be very supportive of a new policy making polls that are controversial not allowed.

myfester


quality posts: 4 Private Messages myfester

If you spelled his name wrong...good!

However, I wish media (and woot!..sorry woot!...still love you) would have stopped using his name the day after it was reported. These guys were looking for attention and now are getting what they want. Why does media keep encouraging these nutbags to 'do something big' to get famous.

oclafretep


quality posts: 1 Private Messages oclafretep

"Torn" would be a better descriptor for my feelings. I like the lines between fame and infamy to be less fuzzy, and I am very indifferent towards our BS spewing, for-profit media.

daveinwarshington


quality posts: 16 Private Messages daveinwarshington

So...
There are no actual bands out there...
Hoping to get on the "Cover of the Rolling Stone"?

The rag is no longer relevant...

itoaseik


quality posts: 2 Private Messages itoaseik
Hasteur wrote:Congratulations Woot, you've hitched your wagon to a sinking ship.

Was it in poor taste (and out of the mandate of the publication) to publish an article about the domestic terrorist? Yes

Is it in incredibly bad taste to comment about the article/posting on a site that doesn't have anything to do with those issues? Hell yes

Will Woot feature polls in the aftermath of other catastrophic events (such as terrorist attacks, weather disasters, earthquakes)? I hope not. In fact I'd be very supportive of a new policy making polls that are controversial not allowed.



Let me get this straight... You're more upset at Woot for touching on a topic people are already talking about, than you are at Rolling Stone for making a terrorist look like a rock star? Smart.

As for the cover... I am the opposite of easily offended, but Rolling Stone just achieved Michael Moore-level ass-hattery in my book. They have every right to be that kind of publication if they want to, just as I have the right to never consider buying their fancy toilet paper.

tamtam818


quality posts: 0 Private Messages tamtam818
bkelly99 wrote:Well said, you took the words right out of my mouth! I have not read the article, but if it helps to educate the younger, desensitized and politically ignorant youth, then I have no problem with it.

The nation is full of young adults that only care about "what's in it for me" and have no clue what really goes on outside in the real world.



But then there's the crazy people who say "Oh that guy went and bombed a marathon and he made the cover of Rolling Stone, I want to be on the cover of Rolling Stone..."

tamtam818


quality posts: 0 Private Messages tamtam818
myfester wrote:If you spelled his name wrong...good!

However, I wish media (and woot!..sorry woot!...still love you) would have stopped using his name the day after it was reported. These guys were looking for attention and now are getting what they want. Why does media keep encouraging these nutbags to 'do something big' to get famous.



I agree 300%.

martinliv


quality posts: 2 Private Messages martinliv

Poor taste perhaps, but Rolling Stone is in the news for what they did...and that's exactly what they wanted. It would be interesting to see how many copies of the rag they sell this month compared to previous months.

It's also good for people like Gary Clark Jr. that is also on the cover of the magazine...indirectly, he'll get some much deserved attention. So, when you look at it that way, maybe it's not so bad.

"Never rub another man's rhubarb." - The Joker

theother1


quality posts: 1 Private Messages theother1
itoaseik wrote:As for the cover... I am the opposite of easily offended, but Rolling Stone just achieved Michael Moore-level ass-hattery in my book. They have every right to be that kind of publication if they want to, just as I have the right to never consider buying their fancy toilet paper.



Amen!

CatCK


quality posts: 50 Private Messages CatCK

I think that if Rolling Stone had placed the same picture as the cover page of the story, and had someone else's picture on the front cover, people would not be so upset.

The anger is all because he's on the front cover. The front cover of a music/pop-culture/politics magazine that occasionally writes news stories. Rolling Stone is not Time Magazine. And, yes, it used to be a sign that you "made it" when you got the cover of the Rolling Stone.

mgvankeulen


quality posts: 0 Private Messages mgvankeulen
Hasteur wrote:Congratulations Woot, you've hitched your wagon to a sinking ship.

Was it in poor taste (and out of the mandate of the publication) to publish an article about the domestic terrorist? Yes

Is it in incredibly bad taste to comment about the article/posting on a site that doesn't have anything to do with those issues? Hell yes

Will Woot feature polls in the aftermath of other catastrophic events (such as terrorist attacks, weather disasters, earthquakes)? I hope not. In fact I'd be very supportive of a new policy making polls that are controversial not allowed.



I agree! Important topic, but not on Woot!

meerkat6666


quality posts: 0 Private Messages meerkat6666

Not sure why people are saying we shouldn't talk about such topics.. I say have fun with it.
It is a little frustrating to know he will probably be executed or get life in prison. America needs to put it's prison population to better use. This guy could build the border fence till death. Until then, he would be a living example of who we want to protect this country from.

lotsofgoats


quality posts: 3 Private Messages lotsofgoats

Y'all are super pissed at the New York Times, too, right? No? Oh okay, never mind.

http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2013/05/06/a-bombers-page-one-selfie/

lotsofgoats


quality posts: 3 Private Messages lotsofgoats

And by the way, I happen to think it's a brilliant cover. He's being portrayed as the little prissy self-absorbed kid he is. He has no power, no message, nothing. He's just some scummy kid.


Rahhhhhhhhrahrarharhrah etc. stop being angry for 'murica before actually stopping to think, yea?

CatCK


quality posts: 50 Private Messages CatCK
lotsofgoats wrote:Y'all are super pissed at the New York Times, too, right? No? Oh okay, never mind.

http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2013/05/06/a-bombers-page-one-selfie/



As I mentioned above, I think the outrage is because it's the cover of Rolling Stone, which is NOT a news source. (Unlike the NY Times, which is a newspaper.)

lotsofgoats


quality posts: 3 Private Messages lotsofgoats

That's a bogus argument, though. There's nothing newsworthy about that picture, so NYT publishing it should be no different. Heck, most of their articles don't even get pictures.

TIME has published plenty of editions with bad-dudes on the cover, and they're a magazine (and a news source?!). Outrage?!

lclement4


quality posts: 0 Private Messages lclement4

Rolling Stone had Charles Manson on the cover and the world didn't end.