That’s exactly the point.
Based on the story and what they’ve said, I do think that’s what they were shooting for.
I had always assumed Rolling Stone would keep its place in Pop Culture. A new crop of music hungry teens emerges every few years and they want to read about the current music scene. It’s a good niche market if they don’t screw it up.
They’ve also covered politics from a younger persons viewpoint. Starting with George McGovern’s Presidential race. I think every President made the cover since RS started.
What does this mean anyway? If Abraham Lincoln coulda taken a selfie I bet it woulda looked pretty grim.
I think the last RS I read was in 1987, when they gave R.E.M. a cover story. Honestly, I only read it if I’m at the barbershop. I’m not personally offended, but I feel a great deal of sympathy for the victims and their families who might be in a store, trying to get their lives in check, and see this douche’s visage staring back at them. I’m no artist, but maybe the cover could have been pictures of the victims and maybe his picture at the bottom… or save the “humanizing” photo for the inside spread.
I do worry a little about random losers seeing violence as a quick ticket to fame. I think it’s possible to explore the evolution of a seemingly normal kid into a murderer without plastering his face on the cover. I definitely wouldn’t want to look at it if I was a subscriber and it arrived at my house.
I wonder why people think that fame was a motivator in the brothers actions? Is there any proof of this?
Also, wanting to understand the reasons why someone commits a crime in no way demonstrates a lack of regard for the victims of said crime. I would say is shows concern for them and future victims. We have been in a shooting war in Muslim lands for a long damn time. There are many young Muslims in the US who most likely have strong feelings on the US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan. In order to minimize more radicalization should we not be very interested in this young mans path to terrorism?
There’s having compassion for people hurt by a crime and there’s acting as if the most direct victims have some kind of ownership rights over a crime that has public implications.
No. There’s a general feeling that they were losers who turned to violence to make an impact on an indifferent world and I think there is some validity to that, but their writings and actions make it clear this was mostly an ideological thing. To get terrorism I think you need both, but I’ve seen nothing that suggests they wanted attention as an end in itself.
Yeah, I can guarantee you that I have never, in the time I’ve been a fan of music, run to RS to find out what’s the hip sound this month.
I live in, MA and most of my friends are losing their shit!
Agreed. It would have been much more respectful to the victims if they had at least found a selfie from when he was having a bad hair day.
@youwiththeface
I’m confused. Does the selfie portray a dead-eyed, non-smiling, disturbed loner or a handsome bomber-to-be? You seem to think both.
Any publicity is good publicity and Rolling Stone is increasingly irrelevant, so why not sleeze it up with a murderer/wannabee rock star?
[Madeline Kahn voice]He looks like a really nice guy…[/MKV]
I don’t “offend” easy and I usually think that those who profess to be offended are usually just people who don’t like something for some reason they can’t or won’t enunciate, usually because their reason is crap. This cover doesn’t offend me in the slightest.
I don’t think it’s a good idea though.
I think that most outrageous violence by teenagers of the mass shooting/bombing variety is, no matter what the perp says actually motivated in significant part by attention/fame/celebrity seeking. It’s a gigantic “look at me, see what a badass I am”. And there is a spate of such things now simply because particular behaviours become fashionable from time to time.
I’m aware that these brothers were into radical Islam. Was or is that really what it’s all about? Tsarnaev has been reported as considering that his terrorism was somehow protecting Islam. Think about that for one second. Does it make any sense whatever?. Killing a few runners and spectators at the Boston Marathon will protect Islam. *Sure. * It’s nonsense.
It’s actually all about narcissism, being prone to violence, being angry and finding a dumbass outlet for all that.
And what better way to encourage violent outrages as an outlet for those sorts of feelings than by showing that if you do something like this you will be a celebrity. An anti-hero. A badass monster. You will make the cover of Rolling Stone, not just metaphorically but literally.
Who took the picture is irrelevant to my point. What the story itself is about is irrelevant to my point. That the word “monster” is used is not just irrelevant to my point but probably an indication you just don’t get it. That it is “legitimate journalism” is irrelevant to my point. That people want to see or hear this stuff is irrelevant to my point. That other media have used the photo is true but just emphasises how famous you can get by doing something like this.
I understand that stories and covers like this are always going to exist because the prurient interest is too strong for matters to be otherwise. And I don’t believe such covers should be banned or anything of that nature. I don’t however, think it’s a good idea.
And even if you assume that it really was about Islam, I can just hear would-be US based Islamic potential bombers and shooters patting one another on the back and saying “Look at Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone, getting publicity out about our cause*. We need to do more operations of this nature”.
[While of course secretly thinking: “If I perform an operation like Tsarnaev did I’m going to be a badass mofo on the cover of magazines, just like him. Cool.”]
- … and before you embarrass yourself by posting something along the lines that would be terrorist radicals wouldn’t think this because the RS cover and story are negative publicity, you need to think a bit more.
Why would this be confusing? The two things are not mutually exclusive at all. You can be handsome and also look like an aspiring bomber, with all the stereotypical traits of dead-eyedness and flat expressionless. If I had to guess, I would say that this is why its critics see edgy “rock star” glamour in this presentation. If the kid was actually smiling and wholesome-looking he wouldn’t look like a rock star. He would look like he belonged on the cover of People.
Have you read the article? Just wondering.
And they called him a monster right next to that photo.
Some people seem to believe this trope should be true.
How *dare *a criminal be good looking! :rolleyes:
Would the offenderati prefer that we put all terrorists in a big box labelled “Bad Apples: Nothing Can Be Done”? Would it not be better to notice that, hey, he looked and acted like a normal kid. What could have gone wrong that he was driven to blow up crowds of people in the city where he lived? And can we learn any lessons from it so that it is less likely to be repeated?
Anyway. This guy has already been on the front page of just about every national newspaper in the world. What makes Rolling Stone some kind of sacred turf that cannot be besmirched by a terrorist?