# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/101 "2013-07-18T00:22:26Z")
One difference between the Newtown shootings and the Boston bombings is that by all accounts, Adam Lanza was unstable or nuts for years prior. He even looked odd in photos. Tsarnaev, on the other hand, appeared normal and sane. That’s, I think, why the article is of interest. ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/102 "2013-07-18T00:26:48Z")
> [@Schism](#): > > I think it’s actually brilliant. When I see that picture I don’t think “what a cool guy.” I think “how did a normal looking kid who took selfies become radicalized?” Which is the real question here. I submit (without reading the article) that this was Rolling Stones intent. That’s exactly the point of the article–the contrast between the self he showed to the world (it is, after all, a self-portrait) and whatever the hell was actually going on inside him that led him to do something that none of his friends, teachers, or coaches could possibly imagine him doing. Because they thought he was the guy in the photo. ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/103 "2013-07-18T00:34:54Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The cover not only humanizes the bomber, but the visual presentation suggests an emotional appeal is being made: "How could such a tender youth go astray? How has society failed him? And why shouldn’t it humanize him? He was human, and we need to understand that. ---
**Author:** ![Schism](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@Schism](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schism)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/104 "2013-07-18T00:38:38Z")
If you don’t humanize someone who commits a heinous crime then you will never understand WHY they did it. I for one am very curious of the route this kid took to his crime. I don’t wanna see his mugshot. I know what that Tzarnaev did and I’m reasonably sure what will happen to him. Im more interested in the Tzarnaev before the bombing. The cover picture speaks to that. Edit: Damn, too slow ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/105 "2013-07-18T00:39:03Z")
Is it just me, or can not see that much of a “contrast” transmitted in this pic? The guy looks like a brooding, serious type. There’s no All American smile action on his face; he is staring at the camera intensely and there’s little emotion looking back at us. He doesn’t like a “promising student”. If I had to classify him just on sight, I’d say he was an unhappy loner. There’s nothing about this pic that makes me say “wow, I would’ve never guess he could have done this horrible thing!”. So if the goal of this cover is to highlight some kind of dissonance between who the kid was and who people thought him to be, I have to say that’s a fail. I see a handsome bomber-to-be in this cover photo. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/106 "2013-07-18T00:40:41Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The cover not only humanizes the bomber, but the visual presentation suggests an emotional appeal is being made: “How could such a tender youth go astray? How has society failed him? Who is he really?” As though he is a mysterious victim of evil circumstances that somehow conspired to turn him into a monster against his wishes. That’s an awful lot to assume based a picture. Then again the suggestion that humanizing a human being is controversial (and it _is_ controversial) goes right back to some of the ideas behind the article. They do write about how pretty much everyone who knew him said he seemed like a cool dude or a good kid and how people who knew him were surprised. That’s so familiar with killers it became a cliche long ago, and I appreciated the fact that the reporter took the time to write about the way people like Tsarnaev learn to present a particular face to the rest of the world and they don’t let anybody see what they don’t want them to see. And the reporter does write about the circumstances in his life and how that relates to what he did - which shouldn’t be controversial either because we’re all shaped by our circumstances. His family and his home life were pretty bad and he felt pretty disconnected as a result. Nowhere does the author suggest he had no choice in the matter. One of his friends insists that the older brother brainwashed him (something a lot of people have suggested), and one teacher makes a brief comment about children of immigrants being let down by society and manages to come off as an ivory tower naif in the process. But now we’re talking about assumptions that aren’t justified by the photo. > [@](#): > > Other terrorists (like the guy who shot up the Connecticut school) just get the monster edit without all the heart tugging analysis. Why is that? Because we know almost nothing about him. He is essentially a blank. If more information was available, you’d see more analysis of who he is and why he did what he did, but that’s hard to do when there’s nothing to go on. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/107 "2013-07-18T00:40:41Z")
> [@Eutychus](#): > > And why shouldn’t it humanize him? He was human, and we need to understand that. We also need to understand why people would be bothered by such a tender approach when that bombing cost victims their lives and limbs. ---
**Author:** ![River\_Hippie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/river_hippie/32/26_2.png) [@River\_Hippie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/River_Hippie)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/108 "2013-07-18T00:58:15Z")
IMHO, it’s useful to be reminded that a terrorist can look like any random person you may see on the street. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/109 "2013-07-18T01:12:00Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > We also need to understand why people would be bothered by such a tender approach when that bombing cost victims their lives and limbs. I have more sympathy for objections from the families of the victims and survivors than for the objections of people who don’t have any particular connection to the events but are outraged on behalf of strangers. That’s not a comment about anybody here; it’s a general comment about the reaction to stories like this. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/110 "2013-07-18T01:14:01Z")
Rolling Stone’s cover has such a unique and iconic place in publishing. it was a dream of every kid playing in a teenage band. Bands knew they’d really arrived when they made the cover. Even a illustrated cover that featured [Dr. Hook](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/131hook32973.jpg/220px-131hook32973.jpg) was an accomplishment. I’m pretty sure Rolling Stone was where I first learned Carly Simon wasn’t black. (that was quite the shock after only hearing her on the radio). I saw a lot of my favorite musicians for the first time on the RS cover. It’s hard to put into words why the Bomber cover bothers me. It’s such a negative image that seems so wrong in the context of a RS cover. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/111 "2013-07-18T01:15:52Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Rolling Stone’s cover has such a unique and iconic place in publishing. _Had._ Much of this outrage reflects the way people feel about the RS cover based on what it meant several decades ago. > [@](#): > > It’s such a negative image that seems so wrong in the context of a RS cover. Charles Manson was on the cover of Rolling Stone years before Dr. Hook wrote their song! ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/112 "2013-07-18T01:37:49Z")
I think that picture was specifically chosen because it highlights the point of the article. From the front cover: > [@](#): > > How a Popular Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Redical Islam and Became a Monster. The picture shows a cute innocent looking young guy who does not fit the stereotype of evil. He looks like a popular promising young guy. It upsets people because it challenges their gut ideas about the appearance of good and evil. He doesn’t look like a monster. He’s not wearing a beard and Arab garb. He’s not black and wearing a hoodie. The whole point is that appearance has nothing to do with good or evil. The people who are offended by it are offended because they feel that it’s portraying him in a good light, but it’s only doing so if you believe that appearance has something to do with the inner person. We’re all guilty of believing that at times, myself included, and it’s _meant_ to challenge and offend us. It’s _meant_ to spur conversation and thought. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/113 "2013-07-18T01:39:20Z")
It’s also worth noting that terrorism in the U.S. now looks more like this and less like September 11th, and that’s what everybody expects to see in the future, too. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/114 "2013-07-18T01:50:17Z")
> [@randwill](#): > > \The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. –THE EDITORS" They could examine the issue without putting his pretty face on the cover. > [@Acsenray](#): > > Ah, another conceit propagated by 24-hour news—that every issue has two sides and they are both valid. \ Word. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/115 "2013-07-18T02:09:30Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > They could examine the issue without putting his pretty face on the cover. If it bothers you that much, tear the cover off your copy. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/116 "2013-07-18T02:12:57Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > They could examine the issue without putting his pretty face on the cover. True. But then again nobody objects to RS writing about him. Re-using this specific photo on their cover, however, is supposed to be an affront. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/117 "2013-07-18T02:17:55Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I think that picture was specifically chosen because it highlights the point of the article. > From the front cover: > The picture shows a cute innocent looking young guy who does not fit the stereotype of evil. He looks like a popular promising young guy. What I’m finding interesting is what posters are seeing when they look at that cover. It speaks to the power of perception. You see a cute innocent looking young guy who defies a stereotypical image. So do others in this thread. But why? Because he doesn’t look like…what exactly? I see someone with an empty gaze and expressionless face who looks disheveled and maybe even depressed. Someone who could easily be lost and/or unstable. In other words, someone closer to a stereotype than not. If someone stuck this pic in front of me devoid of any context and told me that this guy is the one who bombed the marathon, I’d be like “okay, and…?” So I guess what I’m saying is this: people who think this pic humanizes Dzhokar (and I was initially guilty of thinking this too, but then I looked at it closer and noticed that its the context that humanizes him more than the pic itself) are actually committing the same offense its critics are. The difference is is that you aren’t getting offended. But you’re still seeing the pic through a biased filter. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/118 "2013-07-18T02:19:01Z")
Why would the evening news call me a coot? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/119 "2013-07-18T02:24:33Z")
I don’t think that would be your reaction if you didn’t already know who he is and what he did, **you with the face** , but if the picture can challenge a variety of assumptions and can be read a lot of different ways … well, that’s photography and that would make it a compelling choice for a cover. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774/120 "2013-07-18T02:36:19Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t think that would be your reaction if you didn’t already know who he is and what he did, **you with the face** , but if the picture can challenge a variety of assumptions and can be read a lot of different ways … well, that’s photography and that would make it a compelling choice for a cover. If I didn’t know who he was, you might very well be right. But all that means is that a young white male with bed hair and a scruffy face can go about his business with an expressionless face and empty gaze, and the vast majority of people will still see him as normal, cute, and innocent. I mean, this is where we land when this whole perception thing is taken to its logical conclusion. If we darkened Dzhokhar’s skin and changed his name to Mohammed…well, you see where I’m going with this, right? Would folks see the same thing? Or would they be seeing what I see? A handsome bomber-to-be? I don’t think Rolling Stones was going this deep, though. Could be wrong but seriously doubt it. I think the editors saw a edgy looking pic of the boy and decided it would be provocative to use it on their cover. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-rolling-stone-magazine-cover-offend-you/663774.md?page=7)