Dear Rolling Stone: Controversial articles are fine. Shitty reporting isn’t.

In Rants on July 17, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Rolling Stone’s “insightful” article is basically a collection of pasted together news reports from three months ago with ZERO new insights into what would make someone act like a truly evil shithead. It does quote a lot of people saying that they always had trouble pronouncing his name. A lot of them. So, that’s helpful.

It also includes THIS amazing, Pulitzer Prize worthy investigative reporting: “Much of what is known about the two years of Jahar’s life leading up to the bombing comes from random press interviews with students at UMass Dartmouth, none of whom seemed to have been particularly close with Jahar.”

If you’re going to break a bunch of people’s hearts by featuring a terrorist on the cover of your magazine in the name of journalistic integrity, you should probably make it a pretty fucking good article. And NOT one that ends with the line “nobody knows what he was crying about.” You were supposed to find out what he was crying about and tell us. Congrats Rolling Stone. You’re basically the new “”.‪#‎Fail‬

monkeypants boston

  1. Ah, I see what you did there at the end.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: