Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Monday, February 21, 2011

On The Cover of the Rolling Stone

A couple of weeks ago, if you would have told me I would have Justin Bieber as the topic of 1 post let alone 2 I would have said you are crazy. But I guess I should know by now that life often takes some unusual turns & where you least expect it, a relevent post shows up.
In this case, it turns out that Rolling Stone Magazine left out of the online quotes from the story that accompanied some pictures part of what Bieber said about abortion in the case of rape as well cut out a couple key words in his statement about abortion.
Here are the quotes, with what was left out originally in bold print:
1st the question about if he rape. “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.” So, rather than a somewhat wishy washy statement on abortion in the case of rape, he makes it clear that he doesn't see it as a reason.
Then there was the original statement on abortion. Again the online version left a line out that was in the print version.
I really don’t believe in abortion. I think it [an embryo] is a human. It’s like killing a baby.” ("an embryo" was added by Rolling Stone.) Adding the missing sentance makes the whole statement a lot clearer & a lot more forceful.
The whole paragraph on abortion starts out saying "He's definitely against abortion, too." Somethuing I am sure didn't sit to well with many at the magazine.
Rolling Stone put a correction on its website with a link to the print article showing the correct statements. They said that the mistake was "Due to an editing error". & pointed out that even though it was "incomplete" online, the print article had the full quote with the aforementioned link.
I suspect that it wasn't so much due to an editing error in the sense they mean. Rather, I suspect the person doing the editing at best, subconciously intended to make his statement weaker than it really was.
________________
I have to add that this is definitely not the same Rolling Stone that it was in the late 60s early 70s when Hunter S. Thompson (the model for Duke in Doonesbury) roamed the halls. Clearly it has gone mainstream. It did so in the 70s but still kept an edge. In the 80s P. J. O'Rourke became the foreign-affairs desk chief. That was definitely an interesting contrast from most of the staff. But even with the many different changes, 1 thing is certain, it is still a big thing to get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone. (I wonder how many copies Justin Bieber bought for his mother?)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

LifeSiteNews.com Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery
FaithMouse