[Snark7]

In this article, Rolling Stone abused its cultural influence by glorifying career criminals. Young people read this magazine, and the technical quality of the articles is very very high. In my opinion, if you are going to write a crime story, then you have a moral obligation to conclude that crime does not pay. The article concludes that crime is an exciting adventure! Ridiculous!

Articles like this give pundits on the right fuel for the argument that liberals lack morals.

Making millions of dollars by dealing drugs, wasting money, and buying guns to protect your illegal operations is wrong.

[pyre]

> In my opinion, if you are going to write a crime story, then you have a moral obligation to conclude that crime does not pay.

What if you are writing an article about a criminal that got away with their crime due to gaming the system? Do you have a moral obligation to lie/distort the truth to try and show your audience that "crime does not pay?" Is so, then how is that any different than rewriting the history books to suit the social agendas that you want to achieve?

[Daniel_Newby]

"In this article, Rolling Stone abused its cultural influence by glorifying career criminals."

<snort> Hunter S. Thompson.