'Rolling Stone' Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm — Page 2

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?

---

As both a born-and-raised Bostonian and a graduate of BU who once had an on-campus apartment in Kenmore Square not at all far from the bomb location, I had no problem with the cover. It seems absolutely appropriate for the story they are running, which deserves (at least in concept, not execution - I've yet to read it) to be explored for the reasons Henrik put very well.

I also believe they could and should write an excellent piece about the first responders and survivors whose stories are all extremely worthy of recounting. But I in no way believe that the cover of a magazine is in any way an endorsement or glamorization. It is an accurate depiction of the story this issue tells.

I haven't bought an issue of Rolling Stone in years, or any magazine for that matter (I happen to like RS more than the average mag, actually). It did make me curious, though; they do have a very well-earned reputation for hard journalism and longform writing that non-attentive readers might be surprised by. I wonder, how often have any of Matt Taibbi's exemplary works been the cover art and not just a mention on the cover?

---

I don't know that I've ever bought a Rolling Stone magazine.

---

The photo always looked like that but it was a glamor shot by Jahar that has, before this cover was published, been used by the 'Free Jahar' crowd that resembles those fandoms who send fan mail to notorious killers. I get the outrage and RS could have chose a shot that was not originally made with the intention of a kid using the photo to get girls.

I've done plenty of thinking about this.

The readers of RS, I'd say in general, are not the stupid segment of our population. I'm certainly not stupid (in this matter, anyway). I get the point. Doesn't mean I have to admire the rag for it. I think it's in bad taste.

Yeah, they have a point, but it didn't go over well. Better luck next time. If there is one.

---

"I don't mean to insult anyone."

If not, you've done a very good job of it. How to succeed in insulting without really trying. Bravo!

It's funny how whenever anyone says that don't mean to insult anone, that's exactly what they end up doing, and what's more, what they very well meant to do.

"Let's stop infantilizing ourselves and start thinking. "

How about following your own advice, that is if you're capable of thought.

How dare you call anyone else "dumb," you with your psycho-babble clichés about the "banality of evil." It's not about the "banality of evil," it's about exploiting evil to make a buck, and the perverse pleasure of spitting in our collective faces.

You're both offensive and clueless. Not the greatest combo.

After Eight, my point wasn't that anyone objecting - including those posting here - to the cover is stupid. My point was that many might object to the cover because they assume other Americans are too dumb to look at it without seeing it as something it was not intended to be, not just the readers of Rolling Stone, Jane2, but those who see it on the shelf while checking out at Walgreens

The Manson cover was not originally photographed by Manson himself and posted on the internet to have girls look at it and think, 'he's cute'. That Manson cover also seems to highlight the danger of the man. Nobody will look at the Tsarnaev cover and think 'danger'. Not because they're dumb and could not tell him from a member of One Direction, but that there is confusion as to what RS seeks in choosing that specific photo out of many photos that became available for their cover story.

? there hasn't been a crime.

---

"It is jarring and uncomfortable to see Tsarnaev as that kid who took this cute shot of himself to impress girls. Is is jarring and uncomfortable to see Tsarnaev and identify him with an ordinary American kid, something we would hardly do with Manson. "

You make a lot of general judgments about people. I never seem to fit into your descriptions. I don't find it jarring nor uncomfortable in the least. I am not so stupid as to think there's a certain "look" to a criminal. Maybe you're the naif.

---

what jane2 & tazber wrote so succinctly.

---

" But what exactly about my posts is naive?"

Assuming it's jarring and uncomfortable..... . And I realize you're not singling me out but you are assuming it in general by making that broad statement. Why do you make that statement? Don't you know that most people have seen other attractive, or innocent looking people who are criminals? You act like this is something new and groundbreaking.

---

Jane2 is correct - there are tons of women (maybe men too but I never heard of that scenario) who are head over heels for guys in jail. They write to them and long for the day they can marry them. They visit them, look beyond the crimes and fantasize about life with them after prison. Even crazier is watching a program on tv about this and the women are stunningly beautiful! They can probably get any guy they want and they are attracted to a convict in prison!