Does this Rolling Stone magazine cover offend you?

[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.

[Acsenray]

@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.

[Marley23]

@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.

[Tracijo67]

@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.

[etv78]

@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!

[etv78]

@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!

[kevja]

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.

[Tequila_Party]

@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.

[kevja]

@Hippy_Hollow

I’ll just leave this here:

Funny or Die Corrects Rolling Stone’s Controversial Cover

Thanks for posting.

If Rolling Stone had any stones they would have run the alternative cover. The one with sex in the title.

[Leaffan]

@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.

[Acsenray]

@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.

[Musicat]

@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. And they have been taken seriously for many decades since.

[CarnalK]

@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.

[Marley23]

@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.

[Annie-Xmas]

So why didn’t their tribute to John Lennon have Mark David Chapman on the cover?

[Marley23]

@Annie-Xmas

So why didn’t their tribute to John Lennon have Mark David Chapman on the cover?

This isn’t a tribute.

[Justin_Bailey]

Damn, the denial in this thread is STRONG.

[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)

[Marley23]

@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?

[Acsenray]

@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.