pay wall

plus i dont want to give them my email.

part of it:

...

Two years on, Rolling Stone has taken a different tack. Instead of ignoring genuinely countercultural stories, their journalists reframe them. They pitch them to the world with backhanded degradation. For Anthony the magazine went with the headline “Right Wing Influencers Just Found Their Favorite New Country Song,” opting to demean his success by making their story about his listeners. Half the country are deplorables, lest we forget.

Rolling Stone’s coverage of Anthony, however, is not half as embarrassing as how it dealt with the indie box-office smash Sound of Freedom. The true story of Tim Ballard taking down pedophile rings grossed $172 million on a $14.5 million budget. The smash hit filled theaters from coast to coast and beat Indiana Jones at the box office on the Fourth of July. When I saw it, the film garnered a round of applause and standing ovation.

Yet Rolling Stone, as if hoping to cement the suggestion that they are Establishment shills, opted for the headlines “’Sound of Freedom’: Box Office Triumph for QAnon Believers” and “‘Sound Of Freedom’ Is a Superhero Movie for Dads With Brainworms.” Subhead: “The QAnon-tinged thriller about child trafficking is designed to appeal to the conscience of a conspiracy-addled boomer.” A truly countercultural publication would have weighed the merits of fairly covering a movie about the sexual exploitation of children, two million of whom are being trafficked. Not Rolling Stone.

For Sound of Freedom as with Oliver Anthony, Rolling Stone has made noticeable editorial decisions that would be deeply worrying if it was still a relevant magazine. Instead of having the courage to offer its own cultural critiques, it instead looked at who was enjoying the art —and denigrated it accordingly.

...

Can't read it