The cover being this picture of Boston bomber suspect and all-round crappy human being Dzhokhar Tsaraev looking like he thinks he’s Jim Morrison.
Vote on my offend-o-meter how offensive you find Rolling Stone’s decision!
I’m not offended very easily and this doesn’t even ping my radar.
Zero.
Nowhere near as much as the Facebook memes that came out in the days that followed, praising the First Responders and featuring uncensored, uncropped pictures of people with their limbs blown off. :eek: I was not expecting to fire up my Facebook page and see that, and whoever created and posted them was also very inconsiderate of the victims’ dignity.
It is a news magazine doing a news article on what is, without a doubt, the biggest news story of 2013. Anyone who is “offended” by that is an idiot.
I don’t find the picture offensive at all, but it’s probably not one I would have chosen. My inclination would be to go with his mugshot.
…aaaaaaaaand scene!
I don’t even understand why I’m supposed to be offended. 
Tasteless and disgusting? Gawd.
A lot of people think that giving publicity to anyone who does evil is praising him by proxy. (Though to be fair, publicity IS what a lot of mass murderers and terrorists are going for to begin with.)
A lot of people also think that putting up the picture is upsetting the victims, probably for the above reason in addition to the obvious.
The offensive thing isn’t that they wrote a story about the bomber, it’s that they posed him as a rock star. The dude murdered three people. That’s an asinine way to portray him, and Rolling Stone is clearly trolling. (Which is why I went for the Westboro baptist option.)
I’m pissed on behalf of Joe Walsh and the rest of the James Gang. (Cuz, they have a song that rocks called The Bomber…)
Except they didn’t ‘pose’ him - it’s a picture the guy took of himself.
Since it seems that part of the thesis statement of their article is what a seemingly “normal” kid the guy was, I don’t think it’s inappropriate.
We as a society seem to enjoy pretending that evil always looks ugly and bad. I think that’s kind of childish of us.
It’s a little bit of a weird choice, but maybe it fits with the story they did. The New York Times ran the same photo months ago and nobody complained, which is a great reason to not be offended.
The cover photo is captioned “A MONSTER”.
I repeat, anyone offended or outraged by this is an idiot.
Offended isn’t what I am. I think it’s a poor choice. I learned of it from people on my facebook timeline. The ones who are most vocally upset actually live in Boston so I imagine they have stronger feelings about it than I can muster.
I also don’t consider Rolling Stone an entertainment magazine rather than a news magazine so that makes it seem like an odd choice.
However, I’m a former subscriber and until people started debating this I hadn’t given Rolling Stone more than a passing thought in over a decade. So from a publishing/business perspective I suspect it was a very smart choice.
Not offended at all, but it would cause me to not buy the magazine because the story sounds uninteresting (not that I’m ever interested in buying Rolling Stone).
That’s also true. Tons of outlets have already done this story. Maybe they did a good version of it, but I’ve long since lost interest.
From Twitter:
Yes this is the first time Rolling Stone has done a cover stroy about some horrible, non-music-related person. Oh wait.
+1,000