yubb wrote:Hockeynut! wrote:I really think this photographer and those criticizing the image (outside of the family members) are missing the point. Rolling Stone didn't glamorize him, they were showing that this seemingly good looking, normal kid became an absolute monster after getting involved with radical Muslims. It's to show that the boogeyman isn't necessarily a dark skinned guy who "looks like" a terrorist. It's showing how radical Islam takes these people who are missing something in their lives and turns them into killers.
The cover most certainly did glamorize him.
Suppose, though, that they didn't put a "rock star" picture of him on the cover and instead just put the picture shown above or any other picture of him. That would be just as bad. Part of the problem with school shootings and these other crazy things is the notoriety and perceived fame that the criminals achieve through these acts.
Stop broadcasting names and pictures of the shooters and bombers. Stop giving the next kid a reason to think he's going to be on TV if he does something awful. I know this kid had other motivations than "fame". However, in many cases it plays a role.
...but wouldn't that be akin to an "ignore it and it will go away" approach? That's been our approach since 9/11 and it makes things much, much worse, IMO.