It’s hard to stay in business if you can’t sell papers. But again, tons of people have done stories about the bombers (and this one is pretty good) and a lot of them have used this photo.
So why not use the picture of Adam Lanza for his henous crime? Too creepy?
Yeah, that’s just stupid.
Sure, some perpetrators of heinous acts might have been motivated by the possibility of fame, but, you know what, once it’s done it’s done. We need to be able to talk intelligently and thoroughly about subjects of public importance without those kinds of painful circumlocutions.
Lots of people have written about Lanza and used his creepy picture. I don’t know if anyone has done the definitive story about him because we really know very little about who he was or what he did what he did. Unlike Dzokhar Tsarnaev, he’s dead and had few connections with other people. I think RS did a decent job explaining why they did this piece about Tsarnaev and put it on the cover.
It is. They’re also commentators and as such have an excuse to not behave like journalists.
Well, I think the majority of them are doing it for the fame. Also, I don’t see what’s keeping people from having an intelligent discussion by not using their names. Nor do I see what’s so laborious about it.
Laboriousness is a different issue. It’s stupid.
Plus, it’s ineffective. That person is already famous and there’s nothing you can do about it. Avoiding the name does nothing to change that.
Plus it smacks of Stalinist style revisionism.
I think the picture, and the article are very important. Not only can I not understand why I am supposed to be offended, as I stated earlier, but I think it’s vital to see him this way as well as a killer.
Evil does not come in a turban and a beard, as many people have stated. Killers do not come conveniently marked for your convenience. Profiling has major, major flaws.
If we do not examine how a young man like this came to where he is, how are we ever going to see it and predict it in the future? If we shut our eyes and close our ears and scream “EVIL!” and point, we do the victims a disservice.
I think the Rolling Stone made its point, and very clearly. I also don’t believe they “don’t care” about the victims, as someone in this thread said. I’m pretty sure the editors at RS aren’t psychopaths. In fact, reading their articles about Goldman Sachs and the great article Taibbi did on HSBC makes me feel like they are exactly the opposite.
Yeah but Adam Lanza just looked like a geek. Point is he wasn’t pretty. He won’t sell like the Bomber.
Five chains so far won’t be selling this issue in their stores. Not enough to really slap RS down, but at least it makes the point.
I’m pretty sure the costs of imprisoning Bomber Monster (see cover of RS) will be borne by the federal government. I suppose the state may charge him with the murder of the police officer but as of the moment he’s in a federal prison facing federal charges.
And I’m completely sure that Manson’s imprisonment costs are completely unrelated to his presence on the cover of RS which could not have in any case led anyone on God’s good earth to feel one iota of pity for him.
Yes, he did. His photo wouldn’t tell work with this kind of story, although of course it could work with a different kind of story.
Do you think anybody is going to buy the magazine just because Tsarnaev is handsome?
Absolutely. There are fangirls already in love with him.
What point does it make? 
That stupid people can frighten merchants.
Ok, that’s true- as someone else mentioned, this already seemed to be their favorite picture. But I doubt there are so many of them that it’s going to move a whole bunch of magazines.
Fangirls all obsessed with the “poor” bomber.
This particular photo was used, in part, because there are fangirls in love with him. Again, it’s getting at our completely irrational and counter-productive insistence that evil be obvious and ugly.
No, but I understand why people aren’t particularly inclined to humanize this one, and so I see little point in being outraged about the outrage.
Hey, I think we are all forgetting something. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Maybe he was “standing his ground” against American Imperialism.
That’s right. I went there.
I agree. I’m not offended because this is the point that the magazine is trying to make.
To quote a commenter from this Fark thread:
i don’t see as sexy but as showing him as what he in many ways is- a baby faced young man. Its the old “face of evil” thing- these guys aren’t all a bearded mullah wearing a turban and an AK strapped across the chest.