I bought a cool David Bowie t-shirt and a Dr. Dre with Snoop Dogg t-shirt at the mall. The shirts feature old Rolling Stone magazine covers on them and along with the purchase came a free subscription to the magazine. I’ve never been a reader of Rolling Stone, but figured might as well take the freebie and check it out. Rolling Stone magazine is a publication I have always associated with music journalism, even though I was quite aware that they cover other entertainment topics as well as politics. However, based on the latest issue I’m pretty much going to give up even opening the cover of their liberal rag; might as well be a reboot of The Weekly World News.
The January 22, 2009 issue of Rolling Stone magazine that I received in the mail features a portrait of George W. Bush drawn on the cover. This picture goes along with the cover headline of: “Exclusive! Bush Apologizes The Farewell Interview We Wish He’d Give By Matt Taibbi.” Now, I had noticed in past issues that there would be sections of creative writing taking up space, fake interviews and attempts at comedy, but THIS fake interview with George Bush is the best Rolling Stone has for a cover? I am not politically affiliated with either major party, or any party for that matter aside from the party of Wes for Wes and find I am generally able to just ignore the extreme liberal slant to Rolling Stone. However, the publication really seems to be aching for material if this is the type of crap filling the pages. No offense to the author of the article, I do not mean your article isn’t well written or that it in itself is crap; but really I’m not seeing the draw for a major publication to hit the presses with a fake interview that starts out with a long ass story about Condoleezza Rice farting in the oval office. Aside from the first page and some skimming I did not actually finish reading the article. I’m sure it brought tears of joy to the eyes of democrats lost in the world of pointless political affiliations. However, my overall perception of what Rolling Stone is or was is pretty well tainted by this point beyond repair. This doesn’t really matter much in terms of anything at all, considering I do not pay for a subscription, nor have I ever, any way, but seriously: The Weekly World News did it better and The Onion does it better. How am I to trust the reviews and previews for music and movies within the pages of something trying too hard to be witty with fabricated crap? As an avid movie watcher I picked up early on that Rolling Stone magazine was going to generally favor movies with a liberal message or slant, but…but that’s all I really have to say: just disappointed. Wish they would have just put a band on the cover.
What was the point in my ranting drivel about Rolling Stone’s drivel? Guess it could serve as a review of sorts for magazine readers that have never tried Rolling Stone magazine. Guess it could spark some discussion about the publication and its history. Guess it could draw more attention to the publication and writer Matt Taibbi. Guess it could draw me a couple of page views on Associated Content. Guess I just like to type about “whatever” sometimes. Guess that’s the point.