“[Rolling Stone] also took my cover from me last minute and ran the issue. I’m disgusted with that. RIP to Phillip Seymour Hoffman. All respect due. But the press is evil. I’m done doing interviews for magazines. I just want to give my music to the people. That’s the only way my message gets across accurately.”
Drake is angry at Rolling Stone for allegedly publishing quotes in a forthcoming article which throw shade at Kanye West, whom he has performed with and been mentored by in the past. He claims he “never commented on Yeezus for my interview portion of Rolling Stone” — though that doesn’t make clear whether he dissed Kanye while a reporter was within earshot or the quotes were made up. (I am guessing the former.) Either way, complaining he is “disgusted” because Rolling Stone replaced his cover with one HONORING A BELOVED ACTOR’S DEATH is super egotistical and tacky. You’ll have plenty of time for more covers while you’re still, you know, alive, Drake. All respect due? Yeah, right. (Drake has since deleted the tweets about PSH. The internet never forgets, Drizzy.) [Stereogum]
“Weed is the best drug on earth … One time I smoked a joint with peyote in it, and I saw a wolf howling at the moon … Hollywood is a coke town, but weed is so much better. And Molly, too. Those are happy drugs — social drugs. They make you want to be with friends. You’re out in the open. You’re not in a bathroom … I really don’t like coke. It’s so gross and so dark. It’s like, what are you, from the ’90s? Ew.”
–Miley Cyrus ranks her drugs of choice in her Rolling Stone interview. I have a couple of thoughts on Miley’s drug commentary. Firstly, I want to know what kind of weed she’s smoking that’s making her tongue so dirty. Secondly, cocaine is so ’80s, meth is so ’90s. [US Weekly]
It has been frustrating to watch people and businesses condemn Rolling Stone magazine — where, to be clear, I personally have no editorial affiliations — for putting the Boston bombing suspect, Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev, on the cover of the latest issue. Many are upset that Tsarnaev is on the cover at all, as well as with the “rock star”-style photo the magazine used. And some who have read the article by journalist Janet Reitman complain that the way Jahar is profiled makes him out to be a “victim.”
I support Rolling Stone putting Tsarnaev on the cover and thought Reitman’s article was extremely well-written and thought-provoking. I came away from reading it with a greater understanding of how a 19-year-old Cambridge kid became a “monster.” To me, the patriarchy was clearly a problem in this family. To be clear, patriarchy doesn’t just mean when men are in positions of authority over women; it means when men, or one man, are in positions of authority over other men as well. It assumes that the people underneath that man will fall in line and not ask questions; it breeds a lack of agency and even, I would argue in Jahar’s case, weakness in a person. He was an immigrant from a maligned religion who slowly became radicalized by his severe older brother at the exact same time his troubled parents deserted him to move back to their homeland. I would not call him a “victim,” but I do believe it was a shitty, difficult situation for a teenager to handle, and those circumstances contributed to the vile crime he, allegedly, committed. Keep reading »
UPDATE: Rolling Stone has released the full article online, which you can read here.
Just a few days ago, my mom mentioned to me that she thought it was odd that we hadn’t read much in the media lately about Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev, the accused Boston Marathon bomber. I agreed and made a mental note to do a little internet digging for the latest information. But I didn’t have to. Yesterday, Rolling Stone revealed the cover for their upcoming issue, featuring the now infamous photo of Tsarnaev sitting against a wall, looking like your average college student, alongside the headline, ”The Bomber: How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster.” The cover image and the story itself immediately inspired “outrage” from three different camps: 1) Crazy Jahar fangirls who think Tsarnaev is cute and therefore innocent, and believe the mag has already presumed his guilt; 2) those who think profiling Tsarnaev at all, and investigating what led to his actions, somehow justifies them; and 3) those who believe the music magazine is glorifying a terrorist as they would a rock star like, say, Jim Morrison, by putting him on the cover. I happen to think they’re all wrong. Keep reading »