'Rolling Stone' Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm- Page 3

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 11:24am

I didn't want to look at the cover because I didn't want to give this story oxygen. But, then I got over that and decided to just look at it and register my impressions.

I think the disconnect here comes from the fact that it's Rolling Stone, which normally features glam shots of music stars. So our expectation is that. And to see Tsarnaev featured in such a way is jarring and disturbing. It also, for me, turns the notion of an Islamist terrorist on its head. How could someone who seems so plugged into modernity then turn around and do something so barbaric. To me, the cover effectively poses the questions that I assume the article is trying to answer...or at least shed light upon. It disturbs me...but it doesn't offend me.

[javero]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 11:49am

"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!"

If only I were qualified to psychoanalyze them. I have a family member who fell for an inmate with a felony conviction, with whom she grew up. Her explanation was "all the real men are behind bars" which I'm still trying to wrap my brain around.

What is even more incredible to me is how female prison guards in a Baltimore correction facility willingly allowed themselves to be impregnated by a prison gang leader. And it cuts across ethnic and socioeconomic lines. I don't mean to reduce the issue to a single gender either. It's just that I have no first-hand knowledge of the reverse scenario.

Sorry for digressing. I don't care for the cover but don't hate on RS for being mindful of the bottom line. I'm convinced that we all are capable of showing questionable judgment at times and that would not exclude RS.
Baltimore jail case depicts a corrupt culture driven by drugs, money and sex

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 11:58am

I've been trying, however feebly, to say what Javero said.

[BeadleDeedle]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:08pm

I would hope anyone complaining about the cover would at least take the time to read the article, though judging from most of the previous comments I find this unlikely. I found the article to be very enlightening on the world that Tsarnaev came from. Hearing the thoughts of his peers and being somewhat familiar with the teenaged disillusioned pothead sect of New England suburbia, I now have a context through which I can begin to understand how this popular, #chill, and linked-in modern teenager could become capable of committing such acts. The cover provocatively highlights the dichotomy that is Tsarnaev. I am not offended.

Henrik, I am sorry once again that you are attacked for attempting thoughtful conversation. Some people...

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:18pm

"Some people... "

"can get a thrill...."

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:23pm

I have not read the article, but here's my take:

Don't like it, don't buy it. Plain and simple. YOU, whoever you are, are offended. That's something YOU need to deal with in your own, personal way. I'm personally offended by straight women who think the Castro bars are their playground, but I don't go to Mayor Lee and have them banned.

Anyway, here's my favorite parody:

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:33pm

While I agree that it's on an individual basis and there should be no blanket generalization of the nation's reaction, I also think it is perfectly acceptable and normal for the country to unite behind the offensive nature of this cover. Especially when we all know that Rolling Stone could have published the meaningful article WITHOUT the sensational cover.

I wonder if those of you who are supporting this decision or dismissing the offensive nature would also be comfortable with Rolling Stone doing the same for the nineteen 9/11 terrorists only months following the attack. I would venture to say you would feel differently even though it's the same. However, if you can honestly say you'd have no problem with it, then I would worry about you and believe there is some kind of emotional disconnect.

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:33pm

Are people going to a politician to have RS banned? I hadn't heard that.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:34pm

Thanks Beedledeedle, it comes with the territory and sometimes with holding views which might be unpopular

Jane, another thing, I think one reason I interpret it the way I do, and which others here have helped me to focus on, is because I myself find it jarring and uncomfortable to see this photo of Tsarnaev, and in asking myself why I find it jarring and uncomfortable to see his picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone, I find myself thinking very much along the lines of what the article is attempting to bring out about who Tsarnaev is; which is why I find the iconography so compelling.

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 12:34 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:38pm

But why does he deserve the cover? It is unintentional glorification at its worst. Out of RESPECT FOR THE VICTIMS, the cover should have been something else.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:42pm

I simply don't see it as glorification. But I don't have a problem with anyone feeling otherwise. I was simply registering my response.

And to answer your question, no...if a magazine of any kind did an in-depth article on the 19 hijackers, I wouldn't have a problem with their pictures being used on the cover.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:49pm

I'm trying to understand. I realize people's feelings are their feelings and we all have a right to our feelings. I remember seeing the 9/11 highjackers pictured on magazine covers right after. I try to understand why this is so much more egregious than that, but I don't.

I'm assuming people never even see Rolling Stone, let alone read it. There's is at least one poliitcal feature in every issue. Occasionally these features make the cover. Yes, sometimes it's a stupid person from Glee or the like on the cover, sometimes it's politicians, sometimes it somebody from the news. It's as much a news magazine as it is an "entertainment" magazine.

The thing about publications is, the next issue comes out and the last is out in the recycling.

I'm wondering, why haven't people read the article? As I said, what's disappointing is that there's nothing new in it.

[BeadleDeedle]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:51pm

Also, Liza's, it would most certainly not be the "same" if there were pictures of the 9/11 hijackers on a cover accompanying a 9/11 story. Every act of terror is its own individual case. They each develop from a series of specific circumstances that relate directly to that act of terror. People cannot lump 9/11 into the Boston bombing, no matter how much blood one has in one's eyes. I encourage you to read the article if you have not done so.

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 1:03pm

"Thanks Beedledeedle, it comes with the territory and sometimes with holding views which might be unpopular "

lol, almost all my opinions here are unpopular, so I have tons of experience with that one!

Anyway, Henrik, as I've often said, I enjoy a good, heated debate over issues here, and these are only opinions in a thread.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 2:28pm

Is the problem being the magazine itself? Should a music magazine cover current events?

I guess what I'm asking is, would people have the same reaction if this was TIME or THE NEW YORKER or, hell, even ADVOCATE?

I apologize if this has been asked and answered already.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 2:35pm

Agreed, Jane.

Liza's, I don't think I would be likely to feel outrage about the 9/11 terrorists being on the cover of Rolling Stone I've seen many pariahs on the covers of magazines, including Hitler and Stalin as Time coverboys (no, not at the time they were so featured, I'm not that old).

I don't see making a magazine cover (whether or not they can cook too, Hildy!) as a reward or validation.

Rolling Stone usually has very different kinds of cover subjects, and its cover is typically identified with its subject's cache, of an artist having made it, which is adding I think to the reaction.

But they also cover very different kinds of subjects and are known for some intrepid political reporting as well as music journalism.

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 02:35 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 3:05pm

I think people have a problem with the cover photo because it's a really flattering picture of a terrorist. Would people have reacted the same way had this guy been a really ugly dude.


...and why is anyone even surprised at this. Rolling Stone had Charles Manson on it's cover a mere 9 months after the Tate/LaBianca murders.
Updated On: 7/18/13 at 03:05 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 3:11pm

I had seen that same picture of the terrorist a few times before, so it was no shock to me. When you saw images of him on tv during the whole event, he looked like that. I remember thinking that he wasn't bad looking. so what, it didn't make me hate him less.

I might be the exception, but I'm not phased by his looks nor background story. He's a heinous criminal and I object to his gracing the cover of RS. It doesn't go any deeper than that for me.

[Icehouse Life]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 3:27pm

I'm with you all the way in your thoughts about this, Hendrik. As pointed out by not just you, Rolling Stone does regular intrepid political journalism in its issues. Matt Taibbi is brilliant. Its bent is liberal/progressive, and some potential readers won't go near it becuase of that. Yes, it also has politicians on its covers at times along with (far more frequently) recording artists, actors, and models. Sure, it would be different if it was more of a news/politics magazine because it's not the public perception of Rolling Stone.

Also noted here, Tsarnaev is still under the principle innocent until proven guilty. Except for a few cases, we Americans tend to have a short-term memory in general and don't think and analyze on a lot of things. I too don't see it as glorification like with SonofRobbieJ, but I can see why others be emotionally upset with it. As long as the article is in-depth, that's what matters to me. We should learn what forces are involved in making Tsarnaev allegedly commit the terrible acts.

Here's an excellent essay that gives some further in-depth thoughts that should be added with the Rolling Stone cover story, should you read that. There are others too that you can find online.

Is There A Chechen Connection To The Boston Bombings?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 3:48pm

Also noted here, Tsarnaev is still under the principle innocent until proven guilty. Except for a few cases, we Americans tend to have a short-term memory in general and don't think and analyze on a lot of things.

Jesus Christ. First of all, the "principle" is that a suspect is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is not that they ARE innocent and then all of a sudden they are not.

As for the sentence that follows that, Jesus Christ.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 4:12pm

I have no doubt there are one or two or even more potential terrorists who have seen or will see this cover on a newsstand or online for years to come and think, "Yep. I know how to be heard. I know exactly what I must do now to reach people."

Well done, Rolling Stone Magazine.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 4:18pm

Really? I mean, if you honestly think that, then fine. But wouldn't all the other magazine covers the attacks have been on be just as "responsible"? Or do you think it's specifically a Rolling Stone thing?

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 4:35pm

Not specifically a Rolling Stone thing. It's a media thing, especially in this country.

Short of ending up on Teen Beat, they're really hitting the right age group for readers now.

I don't think we have to worry about AARP Magazine.

EDIT: And yes, I do think that certainly some terrorists are aware of who reads what. They can be a "rock star" now.

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 04:35 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 6:15pm

Namo, you might think it's a ridiculous idea but I fully concur with besty. There is no doubt that the sensationalism and infamy through the media has contributed to the mindsets of many mass shooters, terrorists, etc., in recent years. I'm not suggesting that is the only reason but it's tough to deny that it doesn't play a role in the entire process.

"that's what matters to me."

Icehouse - it's all relative. Recognizing the bomber with a rather glamorous picture on the cover of a national publication, which is quite unnecessary, is what matters to those who lost limbs, lives, and loved ones in the bombing. It's just distasteful. Would have been nicer for RS to honor the victims, even if they wanted to do a feature story on the bomber. That might have balanced it out. But let's be real, RS knew what it was doing. They were trying to stir up controversy and garner some much needed press (good AND bad) because sales have dropped over the last several years. Each person will have their own opinion but I personally feel they're all assholes for the decision.

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 6:22pm

Exactly, But they got what they wanted. Everyone's talking about the rag, and I bet they sold a lot this month. Curious to know.