'Rolling Stone' Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 1:18pm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-marathon-bombing-rolling-stone/2523891/

Thoughts?

Updated On: 7/17/13 at 01:18 PM

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 1:26pm

I think he's wearing an Armani Exchange t-shirt.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 1:40pm

It seems their biggest selling issues are the ones with killers and not musicians on the cover.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 1:58pm

The photo seems particularly apt for an article exploring how, as its caption foretells, an ordinary popular kid became a terrorist.

If this graphic made him look something other than ordinary to, it may be held, attractive there would be no firestorm.

We are afraid of the banality of evil. It scares us.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 2:01pm

Tedeshi's (for those of you that don't know) is like a 7-11...it's HUGE in MA but has recognition all over New England. (They've said they will not carry the magazine this week.)

I see the point of the outrage...it does seem a bit rock star-esque, but are they wrong when their lead story is about him? I'm not sure.

[wonkit]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 2:43pm

I have no problem with the story. But the cover? If I knew someone injured or killed in the bombing, I would be upset. I believe in freedom of the press but this decision to put an attractive photograph of a terrorist on the cover was either (1) incredibly dumb and insensitive because it glamorizes and thereby possibly encourages violence, or (2) incredibly dumb and insensitive because it will sell lots of magazines regardless of the implied message it sends. Either way, well, you get the idea.

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 2:58pm

I'm not afraid of the banality of evil. I think this cover photo is meant to be sensational, which it is, and will sell copies. And make money. That's what it's for.

I personally don't think this creep belongs on the cover of Rolling Stone. The old Newsweek maybe.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 3:12pm

Peculiar.

Reminds me of when Time magazine did a piece on Timothy McVeigh and took loving, sensitive candids of him that got them (deservedly) a lot of s**t.

[blueroses]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 3:18pm

I'm disgusted.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 4:35pm

Rolling Stone responds....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594205/rolling-stone-defends-cover-featuring-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect/?tag=socsh

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 4:38pm

Freedom of the Press.

If the cover outrages people the best way to respond is by NOT purchasing the magazine.

Money talks louder than words. Let Rolling Stone be stuck with a mountain of unsold magazines.

Updated On: 7/17/13 at 04:38 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 4:51pm

Bring on the spoofs!

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 4:56pm

I personally think it wasn't the best idea, especially since it feeds into the Tsarnaev defenders who think he's too cute and sensitive to be a murderer.

[tazber]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 4:56pm

I'm sure the article is very good, but it belongs in the magazine. Not on the cover.

Jane is right - this is just to be controversial. Like they didn't know there would be fallout? Puh-leeze.

Brian is right too - I'm not buying it.

[tazber]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 4:58pm

Also, LOL at The Cult of Darth Vader.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 5:05pm

I'm disgusted, as well.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 5:34pm

Since Rolling Stone was redesigned to its current standard glossy magazine size a few years back, I have never seen it once on the dwindling stands of any Boston area CVS or Tedeschi's, but those corporations have been sure to get their names out in the news about how they won't stock this issue.

Also, the article (available on the Rolling Stone website as of today) is a total let-down. The investigation the magazine is bragging about didn't seem to yield any new information that didn't appear much earlier in better articles, such as the pieces the New Yorker ran in the aftermath. Most of the quotes have appeared elsewhere but aren't attributed to those sources. The new quotes of the young people from the Cambridge school Jahar attended appear to be written by some adult trying to sound hip, things along the lines of such-and-such "is mad wack and the people are corny." Yo, Rolling Stone Raps!

I did find ONE paragraph containing something I've never seen before that I think is helpful when trying to figure out transformations like these:

Why a person with an extreme or "radical" ideology may decide to commit violence is an inexact science, but experts agree that there must be a cognitive opening of some sort. "A person is angry, and he needs an explanation for that angst," explains the Soufan Group's Tom Neer. "Projecting blame is a defense mechanism. Rather than say, 'I'm lost, I've got a problem,' it's much easier to find a conven­ient enemy or scapegoat. The justification comes later – say, U.S. imperialism, or whatever. It's the explanation that is key."

That's it. I'm glad to learn of this concept of a "cognitive opening." Otherwise, nothing new.



Jahar's World

Updated On: 7/17/13 at 05:34 PM

[tazber]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 5:38pm

Boston's Mayor released this statement:

Your August 3 cover rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment. It is ill-conceived, at best, and re-affirms a terrible message that destruction gains fame for killers and their 'causes.' There may be valuable journalism behind your sensational treatment, though we can't know because almost all you released is the cover.

"To respond to you in anger is to feed into your obvious marketing strategy. So, I write to you instead to put the focus where you could have: on the brave and strong survivors and on the thousands of people -- their family and friends, volunteers, first responders, doctors, nurses, and donors -- who have come to their side. Among those we lost, those who survived, and those who help carry them forward, there are artists and musicians and dancers and writers. They have dreams and plans. They struggle and strive. The survivors of the Boston attacks deserve Rolling Stone cover stories, though I no longer feel that Rolling Stone deserves them.
Link

[Icehouse Life]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 7:11pm

Maybe the victims' families aren't ready to talk publicly in depth. Tsarneav may resemble like an attractive rock star, but the cover alone will never make him such. By the way, that cover was a photo that was used in the NY Times back in May.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/07/17

Haven't read the cover story yet. But the controversy made me even interested.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 8:52pm

2 words

Bad Taste

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 9:42pm

Was there a controversy when Time showed this cover?

[OperaBwayLover]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 9:52pm

Rolling Stone knew exactly what it was doing. Like Truman Capote said, there's no such thing as bad publicity, and there will be enough curious people who will take a look at this issue simply because of the outcry. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's pretty much the logistics behind this one.

For my two cents, this would have been better for something like Time or Newsweek. I've never agreed with Rolling Stone covering political stuff; they tend to be heavily one-sided in their views based on the articles I have read, which is somewhat annoying after a while.

Walgreens announced on their facebook page that they will not be selling this issue. What other companies/stores have announced the same?

[Jim Colyer]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 9:59pm

I hate that magazine. Always have!

[jackieoh]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 10:52pm

I think what upsets me most is that it feels very glamorized.

Speaking out and writing a long memo about why we think it's wrong is fruitless. The best thing we can do is just not buy it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:11pm

Isn't it true that most people *don't* buy magazines? Isn't that why they're dropping like flies? How will Rolling Stone know it's not selling issues in a way that differentiates this issue from all the others before it?