Comments on: Ragging on Michael

By: Dale Gribble

Dale Gribble — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:28:17 +0000

Thanks for reminding me Sgt.Mom. That’s where I ran into PJ also.

By: Kevin Peters

Kevin Peters — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:10:57 +0000

Roger:
Rolling Stone used to be hip. Now they are just as likely to have Brittney Spears or any other top twenty kid act on the cover just to generate sales. When you cover the same stories as People magazine or MTV you know you have slipped.

By: Sgt. Mom

Sgt. Mom — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:23:24 +0000

The only possible reason for reading Rolling Stone in the late 1980ies was because PJ O’Rourke was there, regularly.
Well, that was my excuse, anyway.

By: Larry J

Larry J — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:07:03 +0000

Here’s a couple simple questions that I hope someone can answer:

Why should anyone even remotely conservative agree to be interviewed by a journalist?

Given the hatchet jobs that journalists do on conservatives on a regular basis, why agree to an interview when you’re very likely to get hosed?

By: Terrye

Terrye — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:33:03 +0000

I keep hearing that when Clinton called for regime change in Iraq that was not the same thing as calling for invasion. But then again, Clinton is not part of a cabal.

Just another moron running off at the mouth. Ladeen should be happy it is the Rolling Stone. No one will notice.

By: Karl

Karl — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:06:47 +0000

Remember when it was a big deal to be on the cover of Rolling Stone?

It is true that it was considered a big deal in the past, but that merely reflects the era when media was largely immune to public criticism.

Watch Almost Famous — a fictionalized autobiography by former RS writer Cameron Crowe. Listen to what is said about the rag. Lester Bangs was calling the staff “swill merchants” in 1973. Jason Lee’s character points out — correctly — that the rag completely missed the boat on Led Zeppelin. And so on. Indeed, someone could have a lot of fun writing an article that goes through any RS “all-time greatest whatever” list and checking the entries against what the rag actually wrote about them at the time.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:33:55 +0000

Roger, this plays into your old line about how queer the times are (when liberals are against liberty, etc.) In other words, let me get this straight: The rockers at Rolling Stone are fighting against a guy whose idea is that the kids living under the thumb of The Man should “have a revolution”? Queer indeed.

By: Vexorg

Vexorg — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:31:03 +0000

I wonder what would happen if this Bamford fellow ever managed to wander into the comment section over at Tim Blair’s blog?

By: chuck

chuck — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:28:32 +0000

Remember when it was a big deal to be on the cover of Rolling Stone?

No. I have never read Rolling Stone, it never caught my attention. Why do you think it has gotten worse? Perhaps it is much the same.

By: Michael J. Totten

Michael J. Totten — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:26:13 +0000

That’s one obnoxious journalist.