Matt Taibbi Blah Blah Blah - Poor Defense of a Shitty Cover

Matt Taibbi. He's a Boston guy. He spent time in Russia and hates Chechen shit-heads like Jahar. So he wants us to know that he was upset about the Boston bombing and doesn't like Chechens. BUT...he also wants us to know he defends his fellow writers at Rolling Stone. UGH.

Well, fuck, Matt, this might be the FIRST time you've written anything without cursing. I guess that means you're real serious.

Every piece of yours I've read in Rolling Stone...and they've all been political, not about rock stars, has contained curse words, and often recklessly wacko ones describing politicians you don't like.

Here, you're awfully sober. But you're still wrong. That is, if you think the controversy is because people think Rolling Stone is a rock magazine and only puts rock stars on the cover, and has made this little piece of shit into a rock star.

You point out the New York Times used the same picture and didn't get any complaints. True.

Because it's about context. Rolling Stone used that simpering photo with the headline "The Bomber," not "The Terrorist." And it followed with mewling lines about how he was such an ordinary fellow, and how did he go wrong, sob sob sob, and it was only at the very end that the word "monster" was tacked on. Too late. Newsweek. Time. No real hard news magazine would've done what Rolling Stone did. They are hard news magazines and print photos and facts. Rolling Stone choose to go wimpy and sympathetic and everyone picked up on that nauseating vibe. And they won't pick up that magazine with a barge pole.

Rolling Stone, coming to the story LATE, and so liberal, decided to send some woman out to find out where Pretty Boy went wrong, and how he turned into such an ingrate with no soul. Fine. Go ahead. At your own peril.

Don't bother to write about the victims fitted with artificial limbs. The little boy who got killed. The other stories. You don't care how their ordinary lives got turned to hell? Only how this little shit went wrong? As if it's such a mystery?

Look at his scummy stupid parents and older brother. Look at any number of Jihad assholes or radical Black Panther jerks or inane Redneck bastards. Go check out a neo-Nazi rally...everybody there was once a harmless little kid in a playground. What the fuck you think you're going to uncover by interviewing all the people who knew this little shit?

As if there haven't been cases all through criminal history of a Crippen or a Bundy or a Gacy being above suspicion until found out. Who the fuck really CARES how and when a serial killer goes off on his mad crimes? It's not going to stop the next one. What are you going to do, Matt, arrest every Chechen-immigrant little shit because he MIGHT blow up a sidewalk in a week? That's racial profiling, tsk tsk!

So Rolling Stone decides to knee jerk an article on poor Jahar. OK, fine. But you guys did NOT have to use a full page pretty-boy shot with no corresponding words to really explain your point of view. If you reversed the cover paragraph and put MONSTER first, all this crap would've been avoided.

Like: "MONSTER...how did someone who seemed normal and had friends, become the gutless religious fanatic who gleefully blew the legs off innocent people and murdered a child?"

How come you don't understand journalism Matt, after all these years? How come you don't really get why everyone is pissed off? Rolling Stone's editors made a huge mistake in using the wrong photo and caption. Your guys FUCKED UP. Your editors, to use a phrase YOU use about corporate hedge fund CEO's acted like SHIT HEADS.

That's why Rolling Stone will be eating thousands and thousands of copies of that August issue, Matt.