One doesn't have to relish a subject to have a response to it, I don't think. <P>Anyway, the main purpose of <I>Rolling Stone</I> is no longer aimed at reflecting on pop culture. It is aimed at subverting and sensationalizing anything that can be subverted and sensationalized.<P>While I don't think that in this particular case the editor's desire was to tarnish a movie's image in the eye of the public, they were definitely acting according to the formula of how such magazines are sold. We have better writers at the university's weekly entertainment magazine, and none of us even get paid. Says a lot about <I>Rolling Stone</I> doesn't it?<P>Anyway, as a certain prolific BD-er said the other day, "Rolling Stone, always starting avalanches..."<p>[ September 18, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
|