9
« on: February 27, 2003, 07:24:38 AM »
As someone with a career in PR (book publishing), I have a few comments on Rolling Stone for those of you upset with the article, and for Jonathan and his defense. True, RS is a respected publication with a history of quality reportage. You are absolutely correct on that point. However, in the past few months since RS acquired a new Editor-in-Chief, the magazine has followed a general downward trend. In attempts to compete with Maxim, they have shortened articles and reviews, added more boxed texts and lists, and generally lowered their own standards. They had a lot of trouble recently over an article on homosexual men who apparently try to get AIDS, or try to give people AIDS. People were misquoted and figures were outrageously inflated. They took a lot of heat over this article, which they should have, as it didn't meet their reputation, even if some of it was based on truth.
In another recent article, a cover article on Justin Timberlake, the writer went (in one paragraph) from discussing his childhood to asking him how frequently he masturbates. Simply put, the magazine is trying to make itself more salacious, hence perhaps that thing on "furry sex" was included. In defense of the journalist though, if someone mentioned it and fact-checkers cleared the point, then he should feel free to write whatever he likes.
Show Posts
