Does this Rolling Stone magazine cover offend you?

[ralph124c]

Not offended, except that RS obviously doesn’t give a damn about this punk’s victims. Instead, the way id being paved for poor little Dzokar to be portrayed as “innocent”. There will be future articles by “experts” who think that he “really is a good boy”. Plus, RS is giving these twisted jihadists free advertising and a forum.
I object to that.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@Ellen_Cherry

I subscribed to Rolling Stone for years and there was always plenty of political coverage and news/pop culture coverage of all kinds. If I had a dime for every P.J. O’Rourke story I’ve read …

Anyway, some of my Facebook friends are going crazy but I can’t see the outrage. It’s a news story, and I’d be interested in reading what RS has uncovered about it (if I still read it).

I’m a huge Rolling Stone fan and I only read it for the news/political coverage. In reading this thread it kind of surprised me that some people consider it just a music/entertainment magazine but on second thought, I can see where they would get that.

[Count_Blucher]

@gwendee

Offended isn’t what I am. I think it’s a poor choice. I learned of it from people on my facebook timeline. The ones who are most vocally upset actually live in Boston so I imagine they have stronger feelings about it than I can muster.

I also don’t consider Rolling Stone an entertainment magazine rather than a news magazine so that makes it seem like an odd choice.

However, I’m a former subscriber and until people started debating this I hadn’t given Rolling Stone more than a passing thought in over a decade. So from a publishing/business perspective I suspect it was a very smart choice.

+1

Its a money choice to be sure, but when Facebook, the sellout-capital city of hate-speech, ignorance & lies, calls for a Boycott then I Know Rolling Stone did something right.
Honestly, the day we are serious as a nation, as a people, and as a world about fighting ignorance is the day we all Boycott Facebook.

@Dewey_Finn

“Glamorous cover shot”? Were you under the impression that they sent Annie Liebovitz out to shoot the cover? And you do realize that The New York Times used the same photo on the front page, above the fold, and no one batted an eye?

+1 again

The only change I might have made is in word order & that’s minor:

The
Monster
How a Popular, Promising
Student Was Failed by His
Family, Fell Into Radical
Islam and Became a Bomber

@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.

Exactly! Because if we’d actually stop all the gung-ho burying of our heads up the “photos of first responders” meme, we might actually pay attention to, or even see, the man behind the curtain.
Who we might be surprised to learn could be a kid who may have just come home from school, dropped a back-pack in the front hall and is raiding your 'fridge.

@Marley23

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.

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.

+1 again

This is why you get the big bucks. You, Sir, I would submit my resume to, for while I know a lot of things, I know that I still have a lot to learn when I read your longer posts.
The more we Know, the less we Fear and its quite obvious that the attacks on RS are less about it being controversial and more about,

“Hey, we’re not done making money, passing laws, and electing people off of your Fear yet. How Dare You!” :rolleyes:

Og, I love that first cup of coffee in the morning…

[panaccione]

I’m at about a 2 since I have never really read Rolling Stone.

My main objection is that a lot of people believe that these psychopathic mass murderers do it for the publicity. They’re looking for a way to go out with a bang. Well, if that’s true, then they’ve most likely inspired quite a few more Tsarnevs. I could be wrong.

[CarnalK]

@panaccione

I’m at about a 2 since I have never really read Rolling Stone.

My main objection is that a lot of people believe that these psychopathic mass murderers do it for the publicity. They’re looking for a way to go out with a bang. Well, if that’s true, then they’ve most likely inspired quite a few more Tsarnevs. I could be wrong.

Do you feel that way about all the media coverage? In a perfect world would his name and face have been omitted from any reporting of the bombing?

[panaccione]

Also, I think there is something to be said for the term “monster.” I don’t know whether to be offended by it or to accept it as truth.

On the one hand, you could say that Tsarnaev embodies the human form of a monster with what he did. It takes a truly evil person to pull off what he did.

On the other hand, Tsarnaev is just a human being. Calling him a “monster” disassociates himself from the rest of us. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing as I think it might take away from understanding the thought process behind this persons actions.

I think it just oversimplifies the whole thing. It’s as if to say, “well, he’s a monster. What did you expect?” But, prior to that fateful day, he was nothing but a nice, ordinary kid. Now, how does one to from a nice ordinary kid one day, and a terrible monster the next?

Maybe that was the whole point of the picture and people just fail to get it.

[panaccione]

@CarnalK

Do you feel that way about all the media coverage? In a perfect world would his name and face have been omitted from any reporting of the bombing?

No and no. Ill admit there is nothing the media can do about that aspect of the story. It’s a newsworthy event, and people want to know about it. It’s unfortunate that a few people take it the wrong way.

[Marley23]

@you_with_the_face

Have you read the article? Just wondering.

Yes. I read it around 6 last night.

[Soylent_Juicy]

@Bob Ducca

They’ve long done in-depth political stories.

From wiki:

Thank you, Bob Ducca - I haven’t looked at a Rolling Stone since I was a teenager. “Ignorance fought”, lol.

[even_sven]

I can’t imagine being offended. It’s a provocative, thoughtful take on a complex story. That’s what we need more of, not less of!

[Sam_Lowry]

I don’t know if I’d say I’m offended, but I am a little troubled by it. Being on the cover of Rolling Stone is somewhat glamorous, and it’s very much a glamorous photo. If I had been in a cave the last few months and didn’t read the caption, I’d assume it was a picture of some hot new musician, maybe some singer/songwriter with an edge.

Also, there are already groupies for him. There were some girls with “Free Jahar” shirts and signs at his recent hearing. If those girls didn’t exist, then maybe it wouldn’t be as troubling to see this cover, but it adds some grossness to it.

And what I’ve seen pointed out in other places, that when it’s a young white man who did terrible things, then the narrative is often about asking how did society fail him. Those are questions that should be asked. I think we should realize the banality of evil, and not just think of criminals as monsters. However I don’t remember these kinds of humanizing stories about non-white terrorists. Were there ever any glamour photos of any of the 9/11 terrorists on the cover of Rolling Stone? Or of the Fort Hood or Virginia Tech shooters? I think that’s part of the issue for some people.

Also, Rolling Stone knew this would get attention. If they had run the story in the issue, but the cover photo had been for one of the main stories, like about Jay-Z or Robin Thicke, then this wouldn’t be talked about nearly as much. Or if it had been another picture or photo of the guy, it also wouldn’t have been as big of a deal. It feels a little publicity stuntish to me, and that makes me a little uncomfortable.

@randwill

Don’t remember people boycotting Time and Newsweek when they put O.J. Simpson on their covers.

First of all, Time and Newsweek put more news photos on their covers. Rolling Stone does a lot of big news stories, but their covers are still usually the big celebrity stories, like Jay-Z or Taylor Swift.

Also, the covers I remember from Time and Newsweek are of Simpson’s mugshot. Maybe there were also some pictures of him in the courtroom on the cover of other issues. If there was a cover of him dressed up looking nice in a suit, or a picture of him in his football uniform looking like an all-American athlete, then that would be an apt comparison.

@Marley23

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.

This is true. CNN does not really have any room to judge on journalistic standards.

@you_with_the_face

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.

I whole-heartedly agree with all of this.

[Snarky_Kong]

@panaccione

Maybe that was the whole point of the picture and people just fail to get it.

Maybe? That is literally spelled out in text directly on the picture.

[Andiethewestie]

The Rolling Stone picture glamorizes the monster in the same way it glamorized Manson. For me it’s just a waste of time and money because people who are soft in the head are going to see that pic and feel sorry for him, just as they felt sorry for Charlie. How many millions has Charlie cost the state of California? Gurd your loins, Massachusetts, you’re in for paying big time for this waste of space.

[TruCelt]

I think most of the outrage is really just the shock of being forced to realize that we can’t “spot” evil. Even people with doctorates of psychology can find it impossible to recognize deep illness in pretty or handsome person. It’s very, very difficult for us to see danger in those who appear attractive.

Far from being offended, I think the cover does a great service, by confronting us with this crack in our perceptive abilities.

[Grrr]

Yes, giving attention to assholes like this, and immortalizing them on a magazine cover is exactly what we need to be doing to discourage future would be bombers and would be school shooters.

Way to go RS.

[MrDibble]

@you_with_the_face

That said, I understand why it would rub people the wrong way. The cover not only humanizes the bomber

You think dehumanizing is better?

[Dewey_Finn]

@Shakes

Yes, giving attention to assholes like this, and immortalizing them on a magazine cover is exactly what we need to be doing to discourage future would be bombers and would be school shooters.

Way to go RS.

If Rolling Stone is wrong for the cover story, is every newspaper and television news program in America wrong for the many, many stories they have been and will be running about the trial?

[42fish]

Am I the only one confused as to why the OP made the most offensive poll option #3 instead of #5?

[Andiethewestie]

@Dewey_Finn

If Rolling Stone is wrong for the cover story, is every newspaper and television news program in America wrong for the many, many stories they have been and will be running about the trial?

What the fuck, RS is out to sell papers.

Truth is if you’re Adam Lanza you’re not pretty enough to make the cover of Rolling Stone but the same fucking argument about a nice boy gone bad can be made for this kid as can for the Boston bomber.

[Grrr]

@Dewey_Finn

If Rolling Stone is wrong for the cover story, is every newspaper and television news program in America wrong for the many, many stories they have been and will be running about the trial?

No. But there have been a few talking heads out there, some I like [michael smerconish] and some I despise [mike huckabee] that are refusing to give these fuckers the attention they want by NOT using their names but instead referring to them as “The bomber” or “The shooter”