# Does this Rolling Stone magazine cover offend you? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 17, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774 "2013-07-17T18:10:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/341 "2013-07-21T18:13:33Z")
SUPPOSE fora moment that this exact same cover and story had appeared in a different magazine, like _Time_, or _US News and World Report_. Would the reaction have been the same? Probably not- sure, SOME people would have been offended, but most people are accustomed to the fact that news magazines regularly have evil people on the cover. Almost no one objected when _Time_ has had Osama bin Laden on the cover, or when _US News_ has had Fidel Castro on the cover. People generally understand that appearing on the cover of a news magazine isn’t an honor. With magazines like _Rolling Stone_ and _People_, it’s a little different. Both magazines do SOME hard news and SOME thoughtful essays (_Rolling Stone_ does far more of both, of course). But in general, the people who appear on the covers are pop stars, actors, and celebrities. When people are USED to seeing George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Meghan Fox and Leonardo Dicaprio on the cover of _People_, they start to think that appearing in the cover is an honor, a sign that the editors are thinking “This is a really cool, glamorous person that everybody loves.” If, then, _People_ published a serious, admirable, well-researched and documented story about the Mafia and put a photo of a dapper, well-dressed Mob boss on the cover, many readers would immediately fume, “How dare they put HIM on the cover, and make him look glamorous?!?” And while I wouldn’t AGREE with those sentiments, it’s not hard to understand them. I’m sure Rolling Stone didn’t want to glamorize the Borat Brothers (er, I mean the Tsarnaev Brothers). But when people are used to seeing Mick Jagger, Prince, the Jonas Brothers, Taylor Lautner, Jennifer Lawrence, Lady Gaga, et al. on Rolling Stone covers, it’s easy to conclude that a cover shot in Rolling Stone is an endorsement, a statement that “These people are AWESOME, and we KNOW you’re going to buy this issue when you see their faces.” I’m sure the story inside this week’s\* Rolling Stone \*was NOT a glamorous puff piece about a killer. But it’s not hard to imagine why it LOOKS that way to casual observers. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/342 "2013-07-21T18:53:33Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > With magazines like _Rolling Stone_ and _People_, it’s a little different. Both magazines do SOME hard news and SOME thoughtful essays (_Rolling Stone_ does far more of both, of course) See, this very sentence only works if you are uninformed about what _Rolling Stone_ is and you never read it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/343 "2013-07-21T19:25:38Z")
> [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](#): > > If we’re talking specifically about The Cover of Rolling Stone, and if we take “glorifying” to mean giving praise, honor, admiration, etc. to a person, then I think it’s possible for intelligent, informed people to come to the conclusion that Rolling Stone was glorifying Tsarnaev. The people coming to that conclusion may be intelligent, but this isn’t an intelligent interpretation of the cover - and based on what I’ve seen in this thread I have trouble accepting the characterization of those people as well-informed about the context. I understand the cultural cachet the cover of RS is perceived to have - based though it is on what the magazine was several decades ago rather than what it really is. (Which is why the strongest response here is coming from people who don’t read the magazine in the first place.) I recognize that the cover is an unexpected choice for the magazine and it’s unexpected as a depiction of Tsarnaev. But no, this isn’t a rational conclusion. To suggest that a major US magazine might really be trying to praise or honor a terrorist is crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Tracijo67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@Tracijo67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracijo67)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/344 "2013-07-21T21:39:02Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Six and a half pages and I’m still waiting on that explanation of how this guy was glorified by that photo. Agreed. In fact when I saw the cover, I was once again chilled by how very normal he looks. I don’t think that ‘glorifying’ is the right term at all. I believe what they were going for is in fact, frightening. A monster who looks like the kind of kid you’d invite into your home as a guest of your own kids. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/345 "2013-07-21T22:27:35Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > SUPPOSE fora moment that this exact same cover and story had appeared in a different magazine, like _Time_, or _US News and World Report_. > > Would the reaction have been the same? Probably not- sure, SOME people would have been offended, but most people are accustomed to the fact that news magazines regularly have evil people on the cover. Almost no one objected when _Time_ has had Osama bin Laden on the cover, or when _US News_ has had Fidel Castro on the cover. People generally understand that appearing on the cover of a news magazine isn’t an honor. > > With magazines like _Rolling Stone_ and _People_, it’s a little different. Both magazines do SOME hard news and SOME thoughtful essays (_Rolling Stone_ does far more of both, of course). But in general, the people who appear on the covers are pop stars, actors, and celebrities. When people are USED to seeing George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Meghan Fox and Leonardo Dicaprio on the cover of _People_, they start to think that appearing in the cover is an honor, a sign that the editors are thinking “This is a really cool, glamorous person that everybody loves.” If, then, _People_ published a serious, admirable, well-researched and documented story about the Mafia and put a photo of a dapper, well-dressed Mob boss on the cover, many readers would immediately fume, “How dare they put HIM on the cover, and make him look glamorous?!?” > > And while I wouldn’t AGREE with those sentiments, it’s not hard to understand them. > > I’m sure Rolling Stone didn’t want to glamorize the Borat Brothers (er, I mean the Tsarnaev Brothers). But when people are used to seeing Mick Jagger, Prince, the Jonas Brothers, Taylor Lautner, Jennifer Lawrence, Lady Gaga, et al. on Rolling Stone covers, it’s easy to conclude that a cover shot in Rolling Stone is an endorsement, a statement that “These people are AWESOME, and we KNOW you’re going to buy this issue when you see their faces.” > > I’m sure the story inside this week’s\* Rolling Stone \*was NOT a glamorous puff piece about a killer. But it’s not hard to imagine why it LOOKS that way to casual observers. THIS!!! I tried to explain this earlier in the thread, only to be summarily dismissed! ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/346 "2013-07-21T22:29:45Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > See, this very sentence only works if you are uninformed about what _Rolling Stone_ is and you never read it. If they wanted to be taken seriously as journalists, they probably shouldn’t have based the magazine’s name on a rock band! ---
**Author:** ![kevja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aeb1de/32.png) [@kevja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevja)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/347 "2013-07-21T22:42:30Z")
What story do you think Rolling Stone is attempting to tell? How a normal widdle boy was bewayed by his famiwy and that’s what turned into a big o’ mean Monster? I hate censorship - anyway shape or form. Of course, Rolling Stone can do whatever they want. But I find it offensive they’ve picked this way to sell magazines. Oh yeah, it happened in Boston. Silly me. What does that have to do with me? What did the Zimmerman/Martin trial have to do with anyone outside of Florida? And 9/11/2001. So they blew up a couple a buildings in New York City. Hey, I’m in San Francisco. It’s not they blew up the Golden Gate Bridge for goodness sake. ---
**Author:** ![Tequila\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@Tequila\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tequila_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/348 "2013-07-21T22:48:52Z")
> [@Tracijo67](#): > > Agreed. > > In fact when I saw the cover, I was once again chilled by how very normal he looks. I don’t think that ‘glorifying’ is the right term at all. I believe what they were going for is in fact, frightening. A monster who looks like the kind of kid you’d invite into your home as a guest of your own kids. This completely. What struck me about the cover is exactly how, despite the fact that he’s “cute”, he looks like he’d be the kind of asshole who believes that he’s always right. That his feelings of superiority would lurk just below the surface of his “nice guy” behavior. In other words, someone you couldn’t trust but don’t know why. I think that would be an important thing to explore in light of what he did. How that could be lost on so many people, when evil has so many normal looking faces, is beyond me. But the emotion I get, it’s just the over the top outrage despite explanations that seem bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![kevja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aeb1de/32.png) [@kevja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevja)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/349 "2013-07-21T23:23:03Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > I’ll just leave this here: > > [Funny or Die Corrects Rolling Stone’s Controversial Cover](http://www.fastcocreate.com/1683419/funny-or-die-corrects-rolling-stone-s-controversial-cover?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29) Thanks for posting. If Rolling Stone had any stones they would have run the alternative cover. The one with sex in the title. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/350 "2013-07-22T01:53:44Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > If they wanted to be taken seriously as journalists, they probably shouldn’t have based the magazine’s name on a rock band! You have no idea. None. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/351 "2013-07-22T02:00:15Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > If they wanted to be taken seriously as journalists, they probably shouldn’t have based the magazine’s name on a rock band! I hope you’re joking. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/352 "2013-07-22T02:01:30Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > If they wanted to be taken seriously as journalists, they probably shouldn’t have based the magazine’s name on a rock band! They didn’t. They based it on a [Muddy Waters tune.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone) And they have been taken seriously for many decades since. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/353 "2013-07-22T04:12:57Z")
> [@kevja](#): > > Thanks for posting. > > If Rolling Stone had any stones they would have run the alternative cover. The one with sex in the title. Personally I thought that was frigging lame in every way. That cover picture wasn’t using sex to sell in any way. And since the joke itself fell so utterly flat the “let me show you how it’s done” preamble felt a little extra lame. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/354 "2013-07-22T14:56:47Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > If they wanted to be taken seriously as journalists, they probably shouldn’t have based the magazine’s name on a rock band! First of all this is wrong, and even if it weren’t, it would still be dumb. Are you saying it’s OK to ignore their intent because of the name of the magazine? > [@kevja](#): > > What story do you think Rolling Stone is attempting to tell? The blurb on the cover explains exactly what story they were attempting to tell; it’s a totally fair summary of the article. Of course you could also read the piece and find out instead of being offended by what you presume they are saying. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/355 "2013-07-22T14:58:22Z")
So why didn’t their tribute to John Lennon have Mark David Chapman on the cover? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/356 "2013-07-22T15:00:35Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > So why didn’t their tribute to John Lennon have Mark David Chapman on the cover? This isn’t a tribute. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/357 "2013-07-22T15:44:40Z")
Damn, the denial in this thread is _ **STRONG** _. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/358 "2013-07-22T20:12:19Z")
**Marley** - Are you seriously arguing that the phrase _Rolling Stone_ conveys the same gravitas as _Newsweek_? (Just the words, not the actual content of said magazines) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/359 "2013-07-22T23:13:38Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > **Marley** - Are you seriously arguing that the phrase _Rolling Stone_ conveys the same gravitas as _Newsweek_? (Just the words, not the actual content of said magazines) Even Rolling Stone wouldn’t do “Is Your Baby a Racist?” And yes, I understand that when people think about Rolling Stone they think more about music and pop culture than they do about hard news. There is no firm dividing line between hard and soft news; you can do one and you’re still allowed to do the other. The assumption that Rolling Stone put this guy on the cover to say or imply something positive about him is still stupid, so how many excuses can we make for uninformed and irrational reactions? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/360 "2013-07-22T23:20:53Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > **Marley** - Are you seriously arguing that the phrase _Rolling Stone_ conveys the same gravitas as _Newsweek_? (Just the words, not the actual content of said magazines) People who are actually informed would realize that _Time_ and _Newsweek_ frequently run stupid crap and that _Rolling Stone_ is one of the premier long-form journalism publications. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774.md?page=19)