I disagree that he does not look like a rock star. He totally does. But a lot of his other pictures make him look like a rock star as well. Specifically, the grainy b+w which makes him look like Bob Dylan. He does on this cover, as well, but in this case maybe it is only because of situational association.
(Now, when you see the pic you will always think of Dylan. Gotcha Ya!)
My above posts should show my opinion of how he was presented; there are several pictures Rolling Stone could have chosen to cover their story about the Boston bombing - they chose the one that would stir up the most publicity to shift more copies.
I’m not offended at all. I do think it sucks that they would give that much attention and notoriety to someone who craved both so badly that he was willing to kill for it. I don’t think OJ was looking for attention when he killed his wife, which is why the Time cover didn’t bother me so much.
This Rolling Stone cover seems to confirm what every potential school-shooter or small-time terrorist is already thinking: “I hate my life, but I can still be famous!”
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.
The cover, in and of itself, doesn’t offend me at all. The cover calls him a “monster,” so it’s not as if he’s getting the rock star treatment. If the picture makes him look sweet and innocent, well, that’s probably what the author is getting at. This guy wasn’t BORN a cruel mass murderer. He was once, seemingly, a nice, ordinary kid.
I haven’t read the cover story- and the story is what makes all the difference. It may or may not give us some new facts about Tsarnaev, MAY give us some understanding of what made him tick. If so, I don’t see what there is to be offended about.
Yeah, this is just what you’d expect from millionaire journalists in the thriving, glitzy world of magazine publishing. Seriously, yes, it’s a provocative imagine and of course they picked it because it would be talked about and sell magazines, which is true of every publisher and every cover ever because that’s what the cover is for. But singling out journalists as profit-obsessed is pretty funny anyway given the state of the publishing industry.
No, it isn’t. You’ve confused the cover of Rolling Stone with the judicial system. Easy mistake to make, I guess, since Justin Bieber has been featured in both so often lately. Everybody knows Tsarnaev is one of the bombers, and millions of people have already called him a monster. It would be premature to carry out his sentence before he’s convicted, but that doesn’t mean people can’t say he’s guilty or say what they think of him.
Yes, they did. But the image also did fit with their story better than some of those others, and it’s not like they just took the photo or picked one that nobody had seen before.
Well, I single out journalists purely because that’s the topic at hand.
True, but I thought it was at least worth point out - until he has been taken to trial and found guilty is isn’t legally responsible for anything. The disparity between an individual’s actions in law, which determines their actual punishment, and pop culture is another topic however.
Which pushes the question further back - is the story in itself, and consequently the picture chosen, objectionable? I don’t believe so, but there are plenty who do; the point of this thread.
Actually, it’s not disingenuous. It’s informed. People who don’t read Rolling Stone might think of it as only featuring celebrities and rock stars on its cover. Well, I don’t think Rolling Stone needs to care what misconceptions misinformed people who don’t read the magazine think.
Yes, and it’s also superficial to come up with those two statements as the only relevant ones. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, the intended, appropriate, and rather obvious message is—“Look at this handsome, normal-looking—perhaps, yes, even glamorous-looking—kid. How did he become a mass murderer?”
I’ll venture to guess that people who decide to boycott the magazine would never have read it in the first place.
Hah. 24-hour cable news. The home of blathering idiots. What a burn.
If “egotistical” means “informed” and “unwilling to cater to the shallow, hysterical reactions of uninformed people who have no interest in serious journalism and are easily manipulated by cable news and the tabloids,” then I happily accept the label.
The quote “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” seems apt here.
And CNN in particular blew just about everything it was possible to blow on the Boston bombing story. Maybe they should sit this one out.
EXACTLY. So why is it “sickening” now?
Have you read it lately? Long-form investigative articles are published in every issue and, in some issues, the amount of pages devoted to actual real-world news dwarfs the amount of ink set aside for music and movies.
As long as CNN continues to employ Nancy Grace, they should think twice before criticizing any other journalistic organization.
The only juvenile person is this thread is the person who cannot accept that there are perfectly valid opinions contrary to his own. The world doesn’t revolve around you. I’m not easily manipulated by cable news or the tabloids. I came to the conclusion that the cover was in poor taste all on my own.
Who cares? It’s not like anyone is watching.
Too funny.
“Counterculture?” What the fuck are you talking about? Rolling Stone has always been just a short step more countercultural than Parade. Kids those days! Didn’t know “cool” if it bit them in the ass. 
Make it 46 years and I’ll agree. Jann Wenner’s goal from the start seemed to be to become a millionaire.
ETA, FTR: Creem reader. Less politics, better taste in music, and better writers, though RS used them, too.
“Rolling Stone” responds.
“Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. 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”
I think this is a good test about whether people can understand context.
Rolling Stone intentionally chose a picture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in which he looks like a normal person. Somebody you’d see on the street and not be concerned about.
Then they ran these lines: “The Bomber: How a popular promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster.”
So anyone with half a brain would understand the point. The story was about how a normal kid like we see in the picture turned evil. It is showing the contrast between what he had been and what he is now. It certainly is not by any means an attempt to glamorize Tsarnaev or portray him in a positive manner.
But that’s too much for some people to understand. They saw a picture and either didn’t bother reading or didn’t understand all those words. (There was twenty words! I ain’t got all day to sit around reading!) As far as they’re concerned the picture is the only thing on the cover and if that picture doesn’t show Tsarnaev with devil horns photoshopped on him then it’s taking a pro-terrorist stand.
Ah, another conceit propagated by 24-hour news—that every issue has two sides and they are both valid.
Some opinions are worth less than others, especially when you’re contrasting serious coverage of a current issue by a reputable source of analysis against some vague sense of impropriety based on uninformed persnicketiness.
And it certainly doesn’t revolve around uninformed, unreasonably offended, pearl-clutching arbiters of public taste.
It was a photograph of a person associated with an important public incident. An already existing photograph. A photograph taken by the subject himself. A photograph previously published in one of the world’s most reputable journals. A photograph that appropriately gels with the theme of the profile. There is absolutely no reasonable argument that these and other factors related to serious information and analysis could be in any way comparable to some vague sense of taste.
Lest anyone jump to any conclusions, I’m not offended by the cover. My outrage has been consumed by other news events.
That said, I understand why it would rub people the wrong way. 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. 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 there is no sexy story there? Because the heinousness of their crimes wipes out whatever curiosity we might have about their lives? Because they don’t look a certain way?
I’m not saying the magazine cover is wrong, but I do think its unfair to dismiss those who see glamor in the portrayal of this bomber and are reacting negatively to it. The editors picked this image for a reason and it wasn’t to strictly communicate his identity. If someone killed or maimed my loved ones, I wouldn’t be all that thrilled to see a flattering selfie of them plastered on a pop culture mag either.